Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the absence through indisposition of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Major MILNER, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair, as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LUTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 5th April.

PETITION (MEAT RATION)

Mrs. Hill: I beg leave to present a Petition from housewives represented by the National Federation of Housewives' Associations signed by 166,600 housewives and other persons living in all parts of the United Kingdom. May I say that this may be just a forerunner of other Petitions.
The Petitioners complain of the shortage of meat which, they say, is causing great hardship throughout the land. They say that they are receiving barely enough meat to maintain strength to work and enjoy their leisure. The Petition concludes with the following Prayer:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that the present system whereby meat is purchased in bulk by the Government may be abolished, and that the meat trade may be allowed to undertake the purchase of supplies of meat for distribution to the public as in former days.

Mr. George Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the hon. Lady did not point out to the House that she is, or was, a director of United Cattle Products, Ltd., the biggest tripe firm in the country, and that she has therefore, a financial interest.

Mrs. Hill: I am not.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We cannot have any debate now.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Airman's Death, Weeton (Inquiry Report)

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will institute an inquiry into the circumstances which led to the death of 2503875 A.C.2 Raymond Lewis at the Royal Air Force Station at Weeton, Lancashire, on 13th February, particulars of which have been sent to him.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): A formal inquiry was held on 25th February, at Weeton into the circumstances surrounding the sad death of Aircraftman Raymond Lewis on 11th February. I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT, embodying the evidence and findings.

Civilian Workers (61 Maintenance Unit)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware of the underemployment of large numbers of civilians at the 61 Maintenance Unit; and what steps he is taking to bring to an end the waste of labour involved.

Mr. A. Henderson: I am not aware of any underemployment of civilians at 61 Maintenance Unit, but if the hon. Member will let me have full particulars I will certainly have the matter investigated.

Mr. Shepherd: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that all the people in the surrounding district are convinced that there is under-employment? Is it not the case that when civilians are engaged on this kind of duty the establishment is invariably too large? Should not something be done about it?

Mr. Henderson: I have had a report on this matter, and the commanding officer states emphatically that all the civilian employees of the unit are fully employed on essential work. If, however, the hon. Gentleman will let me have evidence to the contrary, I will certainly have a further investigation made.

Mr. Shepherd: But is it not always the case that commanding officers say that their staff is fully employed? Does not the national interest demand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should take a firm line in this matter?

Mr. Henderson: The commanding officer has made a statement and the hon. Gentleman has made a statement. The commanding officer is entitled to have the evidence supporting the statement of the hon. Gentleman.

Class G Reserve

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many men being called up from the G Reserve will be respectively over 40 years of age, and over 30 years of age; and how many will have begun their military service before 1943 and before 1940, respectively.

Mr. A. Henderson: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave on 14th March to the hon. Members for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) and Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell).

Mr. George Thomas: Does that reply indicate that men who have not handled a gun for nine years or more, and who are now middle-aged, are not likely to be called up for a fortnight's training?

Mr. Henderson: I do not want to be too technical. The men for whom I am responsible are not being called up to handle guns. They are being called up to work the control and reporting system. The object of the questions which I have undertaken to answer in due course is to ascertain the proportion of those over 40 and those over 35.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement showing the number of G reservists being recalled this year by age and service groups.

Mr. A. Henderson: The age and service group system which governed releases after the last war has no bearing on the present call-up of R.A.F. reservists, which is based on the principle of "last out, first back," subject to the over-riding need for men with the right type of Service experience.
As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) on 14th March, information about the age grouping of reservists who have been called up is not readily available, but I have made arrangements for it to be obtained, and I will make it available as soon as I receive it.

Mr. Profumo: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many of the 9,000 Class G reservists scheduled for call-up it is now expected will receive refresher training this summer.

Mr. A. Henderson: It is expected that about 8,600 Class G reservists will receive refresher training this summer.

Mr. Profumo: Does the figure which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted allow for the wastage which is bound to occur in exemptions for medical, occupational, hardship and conscientious reasons?

Mr. Henderson: We have estimated that about 400 will come under those headings. That will reduce the figure from 9,000 to 8,600.

Mr. Profumo: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that there is sufficient equipment and that there are sufficient operational units to enable these men to be kept fully and reasonably employed during the whole period of their call-up?

Mr. Henderson: The figure of 8,600 is a ceiling, and if we are not satisfied that we can give these men adequate training they will not be called up.

Air Commodore Harvey: As the original figure was 10,000 and is now 8,600, would it not be better if the Air Ministry made quite clear the number they require for training, to save men being called up unnecessarily? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is grave concern about the radar equipment and ground reporting stations being adequate to enable the Air Force fully to train these men? Will he look into the matter?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir. I want to be quite fair to the Air Ministry. The figure of 10,000 was the original estimate of the ceiling and not of the actual number which it was expected would be called


up. The actual number was 9,000, but we have to make provision for hardship cases and the figure ultimately will be about 8,600. I will certainly look into the point raised in the latter part of the hon. and gallant Member's supplementary question.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether plans will be completed to rehabilitate the radar stations' domestic camps in time to house the Class G reservists being called up this summer.

Mr. A. Henderson: As many of these reservists as possible will be housed in existing buildings, which will be rehabilitated where necessary, in so far as time permits. A certain number of reservists may, however, have to live under canvas.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that squatters have moved in at quite a number of these domestic sites? If so, what does he propose to do about them?

Mr. Henderson: I should like to have particulars of the stations where there are these squatters.

Station, Hednesford

Mr. H. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that, at the Personnel Drafting Centre, Hednes-ford, Staffordshire, there are no facilities for recreation or physical training or drill, that the accommodation is now in a poor state of repair; and, in view of the residence there of 1,000 men for an average stay of six weeks and more, whether he will take steps to improve conditions.

Mr. A. Henderson: Facilities for recreation, physical training and drill do exist at the R.A.F. Station, Hednesford. In view, however, of the increase in the number of recruits under training, the number of playing fields is being increased. The living accommodation consists of temporary hutting, which is not of the same standard as permanent barrack blocks. Certain improvements are, however, at present in hand, and I can assure the hon. Member that everything possible will be done, within the resources available, to improve the living standards at this station.

Ex-Miners (Release)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Air the conditions under which ex-miners will be released from the Royal Air Force, mentioning any classes that are debarred from the scheme.

Mr. A. Henderson: For the time being, any airman who enlisted on a Regular engagement after 1st January, 1949, and who has had at least six months' experience in underground mining, may, if he wishes, be released in order to return to the mines, provided that he does not hold higher rank than corporal. The only categories of airmen ineligible are those who are either undergoing aircrew training or serving in the Korean theatre.

Mr. Hynd: Does this apply to National Service men in the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir.

Royal Observer Corps (Strength)

Mr. Profumo: asked the Secretary of State for Air the peak war-time strength of the Royal Observer Corps; and what is its present strength.

Mr. A. Henderson: The peak war-time strength of the Royal Observer Corps was 33,982; its present strength is 16,244.

Mr. Profumo: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an estimate of the minimum figure which is required for adequate coverage of the whole country for air defence purposes?

Mr. Henderson: The total peace-time establishment is 28,376.

Mr. Profumo: I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman understood me properly. I was asking what he considers to be the minimum adequate figure which is necessary in order to give the total coverage which would be adequate in the case of operations.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Member may take it that the peace-time establishment is related to the requirements of war-time; and that is 28,000.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered, in consultation with the Secretary of State for War, asking for recruits from the Home Guard who are too old now to do active operations to be enlisted into the Observer Corps?

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful for that suggestion, but I should like the House to realise that last year nearly 2,000 recruits were obtained by the Royal Observer Corps and that that is satisfactory, although it is not as satisfactory as we would like it to be. I will certainly consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

Sir R. Glyn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer shows that there is a deficiency of nearly 10,000 people for the Observer Corps.

Dyce Airport

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consult with the Aberdeen County Council and the Aberdeen Town Council before finalising his plans for the new 2,000-yard runway at Dyce Airport; when the survey being carried out by his Department will be completed; and what arrangements will be made for the rehousing of families displaced by the demolition of their existing dwelling-houses.

Mr. A. Henderson: I will gladly consult with the Aberdeen County Council and the Aberdeen Town Council. The survey has already been completed, but my Department's plans are under review to determine what can be done to reduce their effect on existing dwelling-houses and this may necessitate a further survey. I am consulting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in regard to the rehousing of any families who may be displaced.

Mr. Spence: Is the decision to proceed with this new runway a final decision, or might it be reconsidered in the light of the survey if it is shown that great hardship would be incurred?

Mr. Henderson: I should not like to rule out a reconsideration in the light of any evidence which is not now before us being brought to our attention by those who are interested. It is, however, very important that we should have this runway, because of the re-equipment of the Aberdeen squadron with jet aircraft.

Airfield, Greenham Common

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for Air if, in consultation with other Ministers, he will reconsider the proposal

to place a heavy bomber base on Green-ham Common within one and a half miles of the town of Newbury, in view of the representations made to him.

Mr. A. Henderson: As I informed the hon. Member on Monday when I received representatives of the local authorities concerned, I am giving careful consideration to the representations which they made to me about the use of this airfield and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Hurd: May I thank the Minister for that sympathetic reply and ask him, further, if he will consult with the other Ministers in the Cabinet who are also involved?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir, I will.

Mr. Donner: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the 40,000 people concerned, particularly the unlucky inhabitants of Enborne Valley, will have an opportunity of making representations before any irrevocable decision is taken, since their lives and property are bound to be adversely affected if this proposal proceeds?

Mr. Henderson: The representatives of all the local authorities concerned have had that opportunity.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that another aspect which should be borne in mind is the commoners' rights on this very extensive area? Is he aware that there is great uneasiness in the neighbourhood of Newbury over this proposal and that the statement which he proposes to make, as a Cabinet decision, will be much welcomed?

Mr. Henderson: I realise the feelings of all those who are affected by this proposal, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the runway was laid down in 1940.

Flying Boat Station, Calshot

Surgeon Lieut-Commander Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Air what his proposals are for the future of the flying boat base at Calshot.

Mr. A. Henderson: Calshot will continue to be used as a flying boat station of the Royal Air Force.

Surgeon Lieut-Commander Bennett: While that is certainly in many ways a very satisfactory answer, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he is aware of the very large and increasing heavy sea traffic around the port of Calshot, which will be expanded by the building of a very large oil depot in the neighbourhood, and if he considers that the place will be safe enough to continue there the training of flying boat pilots?

Mr. Henderson: It will be certainly safe enough for the time being.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Insurance

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he can now report any agreement, through an international convention, for the provision of insurance against damage to persons and properties on the ground from aircraft.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Beswick): The Legal Committee of the International Civil Aviation Organisation prepared a draft of an international convention in January of this year. It is hoped that a special international conference will be held later this year to consider the adoption of this draft.

Mr. Williams: If there is no compulsory third party insurance and an aeroplane crashes into a house, doing damage, and the owner of the plane cannot pay because he is not insured, what happens?

Mr. Beswick: That seems to be a hypothetical question.

Mr. Williams: Had not the hon. Gentleman better hurry up and get on with it, as this is done in the case of motor cars?

Solent Flying Boats

Mr. Ralph Morley: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what has been done with the Solent flying boats.

Mr. Beswick: The Solent flying boats have been put in the hands of the manufacturers for sale, individual sales being subject to consultation with the Air Ministry.

Mr. Morley: Can my hon. Friend say what price has been received for these boats as a result of the sale?

Mr. Beswick: No, Sir.

Air Commodore Harvey,: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether B.O.A.C. ever bought these boats from the Ministry of Supply and, if they did not, what they paid for the hire of them?

Mr. Beswick: No, Sir.

Flight Operations Officers

Mr. John Grimston: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will make a statment on the future employment of flight operations officers by British European Airways Corporation and British Overseas Airways Corporation, in view of the Attorney-General's observations at the inquiry into the accident to Viking aircraft, G/AHPN.

Mr. Beswick: I am not prepared to comment, in advance of this report, on what is normally a matter of management for the Corporations.

Mr. Grimston: Is it not a fact that the Attorney-General said, and British European Airways Corporation agreed, that this accident would not have taken place if these officers had been employed?

Mr. Beswick: No, Sir. It is not a fact that the Attorney-General said that, nor that the British European Airways Corporation agreed with it.

Mr. Grimston: Will the hon. Gentleman read the issue of "Flight," in which the case is reported, where he will see that what I have said is true?

Mr. Beswick: I have not only read the report, but have also discussed it with the Attorney-General. My right hon. and learned Friend made certain submissions which he asked to be taken into consideration but, as he made quite clear, he was not putting forward an opinion on this matter.

Flying Regulations

Mr. Janner: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will consider introducing legislation making it a criminal offence for the pilot of an aircraft to disregard flying regulations as laid down.

Mr. Beswick: Under Article 65 of the Air Navigation Order, 1949, an offender against flying regulations is liable, on conviction in a court of summary jurisdiction, to a fine not exceeding £200 or to imprisonment not exceeding six months. or to both fine and imprisonment.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is that not a very large fine to impose merely by virtue of an order? Cannot it be done by legislation?

Mr. Beswick: This is the maximum, of course; it does not mean that this will be the fine in every case.

Accident, Mill Hill (Report)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he can now say when the report of the inquiry into the accident to the Renfrew-bound Dakota aircraft which occurred at Mill Hill last October, with serious loss of life, will be available.

Mr. Beswick: No, Sir. The report has not yet been submitted to my noble Friend.

Mr. Rankin: Has my hon. Friend any idea when the report may be submitted, because there is a feeling that the time lag between the accident and the report in these cases is rather long? Without detracting from the effectiveness of these inquiries, something might be done to expedite the production of these reports.

Mr. Beswick: I do not think it would be proper to suggest to the president of the committee of inquiry that he is not producing a report as quickly as may be possible. As far as the preparatory work is concerned I have invited hon. Members who are interested in this matter to see exactly what work is involved before the investigation takes place. If they do, I think they will see that the time taken is not unduly long.

Air Corridor System

Mr. Rankin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if the system of air corridors for civil aircraft is now in operation in this country.

Mr. Beswick: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made on this subject during the debate on 19th March.

Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend expand that statement a little and tell me if he proposes to extend the corridor system to the Renfrew—Northolt route?

Mr. Beswick: That is what I said in that part of the speech to which I referred my hon. Friend.

Scotland—London Services

Mr. Spence asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what services are to be provided between Dyce, Turnhouse, Renfrew and London during the period of the Festival of Britain, the Edinburgh Festival and the Royal Highland Agricul: 

Mr. Beswick: I understand that throughout the summer British European Airways intend to operate a service on weekdays between Aberdeen (Dyce) and Renfrew, where connections can be made with London. The Corporation will operate between Turnhouse and London twice. daily on Mondays to Fridays and once daily on Saturdays, and between Renfrew and Turnhouse a weekday service. If the demand justifies it and aircraft resources permit, B.E.A. will operate additional services for short periods. B.E.A. have no plans for operating a Dyce—Turnhouse service this summer, but provisional approval has been given to a private company to operate along a route including these points. Details of this service are still under discussion.

Mr. Spence: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that his reply means that there will be only one flight a day from London to Aberdeen and that it is so arranged that passengers have to sleep the night in Glasgow? Does he consider that to be satisfactory?

Mr. Vane: Will the Parliamentary Secretary see whether one of these additional regular services between Scotland and London can stop in the North-West of England, an area which has been without any of these services since the air Corporations were nationalised?

Radio-Altimeters

Surgeon Lieut-Commander Bennett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what total number and what proportion of the aircraft of British European Airways Cor-


poration are fitted with radio-altimeters or other forms of ground clearance altimeter.

Mr. Beswick: Four aircraft of British European Airways are fitted with radio-altimeters as trial installations. No other forms of ground clearance altimeter are fitted.

Surgeon Lieut-Commander Bennett: Is it not desirable, in view of the very high safety value of this kind of device, that the whole B.E.A.C. fleet should be so equipped, so that accidents such as recently happened may be avoided?

Mr. Beswick: This is a matter on which there are different opinions. There are factors of cost and weight and reliability to be taken into consideration, but it is hoped that as a result of these trials we can come to a firm conclusion.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA (CREDIT)

Lieut-Commander R. H. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now say what raw materials it is intended to supply to Yugoslavia under the credit of £2,000,000 recently granted to that country.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Herbert Morrison): This information was set out in the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) on 12th March.

Lieut-Commander Thompson: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that no materials vital to the re-armament of this country will be provided under this credit?

Mr. Morrison: All these matters are under consideration on the merits of each case and the point made in that supplementary question will be kept in mind.

Mr. Dodds: Is it not a fact that Yugoslavia have raw materials which we badly need and that for us to obtain them they need credits from us to get the machinery to win those materials from the ground?

Mr. Morrison: The point raised by my hon. Friend is also an important consideration.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the House be assured that in all these matters of the

provision both of finance and materials to the Yugoslav Government there is continuous consultation with the United States Government?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know about "continuous," but in so far as it would be appropriate and relevant to any particular transaction appropriate consultation would take place. I am not sure about the word "continuous."

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL MARKET (PROPOSAL)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the communications received by His Majesty's Government from the French Government in regard to the establishment of a European Agricultural Market: and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Morrison: His Majesty's Government have received no such communication and I have. Therefore, no statement to make.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ CANAL (BRITISH SHIPS)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent obstacles are now placed in the way of British ships proceeding through the Suez Canal on their lawful occasions; and if he will now make a statement.

Mr. H. Morrison: All ships passing through the Suez Canal from south to north, in addition to the usual narcotics and health control by the Egyptian authorities, are submitted to a Customs inspection in order to ascertain whether they are carrying items on the Egyptian contraband list destined for Israeli ports. In addition, ships which have at any time since June, 1950, carried goods on the Egyptian contraband list destined for Israeli ports are liable to be refused certain port facilities by the Egyptian authorities. As the House is already aware, His Majesty's Government have protested to the Egyptian Government against these measures, and, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the House a few days ago, we heartily deplore this situation. Indeed. as our representative at the


United Nations pointed out on 13th November last, it must be a matter of regret to us all that the continuance in force of these restrictions for so long after the Armistice between Egypt and Israel should contribute, as it does, to the present state of tension and uneasiness in the Middle East.

Mr. Eden: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider sending to the Egyptian Government a précis of yesterday's discussion in the House on this matter and, at the same time, perhaps, draw their attention to the fact that the volume of speeches against the proposals as they now are bears no relation to the actual vote?

Mr. Morrison: I appreciate the point and I will consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Paton: For the information of the House, will my right hon. Friend agree to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the items which Egypt includes in its contraband list?

Mr. Morrison: I will look into that and see whether it can be done.

Sir Herbert Williams: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider asking a company of Israeli troops to travel on one of these ships so that the Egyptian Customs officers might take the same action as their Army did a little time ago?

Mr. Morrison: That sounds a little complicated.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECT, MOSCOW (DISAPPEARANCE)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any report on the disappearance from the British Embassy at Moscow of Mrs. Bolton; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the written reply given to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) on 12th March. There has been no change in the position since that date.

Colonel Hutchison: Now that we have a fresh Foreign Secretary, may I appeal to him to try fresh methods to stop this diabolical persecution of women who did

nothing more heinous than to marry the soldiers and airmen of Allies?

Mr. Morrison: I share the feelings of the House on this matter. It is an unpleasant business, and it is very objectionable. Believe me, anything I can do to the appropriate end I will do.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURMA (BRITISH FINANCIAL AID)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what answer he has given, or proposes to give, to the request made by the Government of Burma for a further British loan of £5 million, to enable them to buy a one-third share in the Burmah Oil Company; how much money has been advanced to Burma by His Majesty's Government by way of gift or loan since the end of the war, either directly or indirectly; and to what extent British interests, expropriated by the Government of Burma, are still awaiting compensation.

Mr. H. Morrison: On the first point, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) on 19th March. Financial help given to Burma by the United Kingdom since the end of the war, including our contribution to the Commonwealth loan made in May last year, amounts in all to £75¾ million. Of this sum, some £36½ million have been waived or repaid, and the sum still owed to this country by the Burma Government is a little over £39 million.
Sums totalling rather over £1½ million are still the subject of claims against the Burma Government by the five British firms formerly engaged in the timber trade in Burma, whose interests were taken over by the Burma Government in 1948 and 1949. These are the only claims still outstanding.

Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that before any further money is advanced to Burma the House will have an opportunity of discussing the whole of our relationship with Burma?

Mr. Morrison: I am rather hesitant about giving guarantees, but I will keep in mind what the hon. Gentleman says.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA

Oil Installations (Nationalisation)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has had from the Government of Persia regarding the nationalisation of Anglo-Persian oil wells and refineries.

Mr. Somerset de Chair: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Persian Government to the representations made in Teheran by our Ambassador on the proposal now before the Majlis to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

Mr. M. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action, in view, of the resolution on the nationalisation of all oil concessions in Persia by the Majlis, he proposes to take to safeguard the rights of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

Mr. H. Morrison: No representation has been received from the Government of Persia regarding the "nationalisation" of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's wells and refineries, and they have not yet replied to the Note presented to them by His Majesty's Ambassador on 14th March.
The various forms of action that could, if need arose, be taken to protect the Company's position are of course under consideration, but I do not think it would be in the public interest to make any further statement at the present time.

Mr. de Chair: Would the right hon. Gentleman warn the Persian Government that the experience of nationalisation in this country has been so disastrous that they would be very unwise to follow it in that country, quite apart from the fact that they would have no more right to nationalise a foreign company than we should have to nationalise the Standard Oil Company's refinery at Fawley?

Mr. Morrison: I have no doubt that the somewhat propagandist supplementary question of the hon. Gentleman will receive the attention of the Persian Government.

Mr. Price: Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that he will not

allow a valuable undertaking of great international importance to go up in smoke because of an emotional landslide in Teheran?

Mr. Morrison: My own feelings about the matter are much as indicated by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Gammans: Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that His Majesty's Government are in close consultation with the Governments of the United States and all the countries who are interested in the supply of oil from this part of the world?

Mr. Morrison: The House may take it that we are in contact with the interests concerned in the matter. I am taking the matter very seriously indeed.

Government Policy

Mr. de Chair: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the strategic importance of the Persian oil supplies, His Majesty's Government will offer a military guarantee to that country as a deterrent to any potential aggressor.

Mr. H. Morrison: It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to encourage an independent, stable and prosperous Persia. The House will recall that on 19th May, 1950, my predecessor issued a statement in which he said that His Majesty's Government were vitally concerned in the independence, integrity and security of Persia, and were determined to continue their policy of direct support to Persia and to other countries which were striving, through military and economic efforts, to safeguard their independence and territorial integrity.
I welcome this opportunity to reaffirm that that statement still represents the policy of His Majesty's Government, and I do not think that any further assurance is necessary. Unfortunately, the Persians are at the moment not giving us much encouragement.

Mr. de Chair: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present Prime Minister of Persia became a national hero in 1946 because of the stand which he took at Lake Success against the Russian attempt to annex Azerbaijan, and that there is an immense amount of good will in Persia towards the West which needs


the evidence of a slightly more vigorous determination to resist aggression than is given in the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made?

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I can assure him that I will keep those aspects of the matter in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN WAR MEMORIAL, BERLIN (INCIDENT)

Mr. Julian Amery: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, on the night of 3rd March, two persons were kidnapped by Russian troops within the precincts of the Red Army War Memorial, situated in the British sector of Berlin; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am aware that there was an incident. Two persons were seen in conversation with the Soviet guard at the Red Army War Memorial, and one of these men later alleged that his companion had been kidnapped by the guard. A Soviet officer on the spot confirmed to two British officers that the guard had tried to apprehend two persons who were making nuisances of themselves, but denied categorically that the guard had, in fact, detained anybody. Though inquiries have failed to locate the second person involved, the British authorities in Berlin have no evidence which throws any further light on the matter.

Mr. Amery: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, before coming to the conclusion that no one was being unlawfully detained at the Memorial, and before withdrawing the cordon of troops which we had thrown round it, our military authorities first carried out a search in the precincts of the Memorial, or whether they merely accepted the assurance of the Russian officer in charge? Can he further say whether the Memorial was kept under observation after the cordon of troops had been withdrawn?

Mr. Morrison: On the detailed matters which the hon. Gentleman has put, I am not quite so well briefed as he is, but if he will be so good as to put down a Question I will do my best to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDONESIA (MOTOR VESSEL, SINKING)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the result of his representations to the Government of Indonesia regarding the losses suffered by British subjects in Malaya as a result of the sinking of the motor vessel "Kian Peng" in December, 1948.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Netherlands and the Indonesian authorities have each attributed to the other responsibility for any liability arising out of this incident. We are now seeking further information in order to try to establish definitely where the responsibility rests.

Mr. Gammans: As this has been going on now for nearly two years, does the right hon. Gentleman feel that there is very much hope of getting a solution which is satisfactory to the people who have lost this ship?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is on a fair point, but I cannot get the two Governmental authorities to agree upon the facts. I will do my best in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS (RECOGNITION)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what principles he acts when deciding whether diplomatic recognition should be accorded to foreign Governments.

Mr. H. Morrison: The question of the recognition of a State or Government should be distinguished from the question of entering into diplomatic relations with it, which is entirely discretionary. On the other hand, it is international law which defines the conditions under which a Government should be recognised de jure or de facto, and it is a matter of judgment in each particular case whether a régime fulfils the conditions. The conditions under international law for the recognition of a new régime as the de facto Government of a State are that the new régime has in fact effective control over most of the State's territory and that this control seems likely to continue. The conditions for the recognition of a new régime as the de jure Government of a State are that the new régime should not merely have effective control over


most of the State's territory, but that it should, in fact, be firmly established. His Majesty's Government consider that recognition should be accorded when the conditions specified by international law are, in fact, fulfilled and that recognition should not be given when these conditions are not fulfilled. The recognition of a Government de jure or de facto should not depend on whether, the character of the régime is such as to command His Majesty's Government's approval.

Mr. Anthony Nutting: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, now we have sent an Ambassador to Madrid, it is now the conduct and not the political complexion of a foreign Government which decides whether His Majesty's Government should have diplomatic relations with that State?

Mr. Morrison: It surprises me to hear it suggested that we have not got diplomatic relations with Spain. Indeed, I understand that we have an Ambassador in Madrid.

Major Legge-Bourke: In reference to his remark about de jure recognition depending on whether or not a Government is firmly established, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether it would not be better to make sure they were there by right, and not by force?

Mr. Morrison: I appreciate the point, but. of course, that draws us into points of morals, and so on, which, I gather, are a little difficult in this sphere.

Sir H. Williams: In view of his last answer, does the right hon. Gentleman think that his Government ought to be recognised de jure by anybody?

Mr. Morrison: That bright supplementary question occurred to me while I was answering the main Question. But there is not the least doubt that His Majesty's Government is the Government of the United Kingdom, and that is the end of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA (WAR DAMAGE)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what reports he has received from the United Nations about the destruction caused to Seoul, the capital of South Korea, since the outbreak of the war;
(2) what estimate he has received from the United Nations of the number of towns and villages destroyed during the Korean war; how many civilian and military casualties have been suffered by the people of Korea; and how many refugees there are now in Korea as a result of the war.

Mr. H. Morrison: No such reports have been received from the United Nations since the military situation still makes it impossible to make any satisfactory assessments. There is however no doubt that the destruction in Korea has been extremely severe.

Mr. Hughes: Would my right hon. Friend tell us whether Seoul is now in such a state that Mr. Synghman Rhee has not been invited back to it?

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST (DEFENCE DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the discussions that have been taking place in Malta between British and American naval officers on Middle East defence, what steps have been taken to invite representatives of Greece and Turkey to participate in discussions.

Mr. H. Morrison: The discussions in Malta to which my hon. Friend refers, and which are now concluded, were discussions between senior British and American military representatives in the area and no steps were taken to invite representatives of any other country to participate.

Mr. Price: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that in due course representatives of Turkey and Greece will be brought into the discussions on the defence of the Mediterranean, whether the eastern or the central part?

Mr. Morrison: I am speaking from memory, but I think that Turkey and Greece are in, some way associated with the North Atlantic Treaty, so that should be taken taken care of; but these were direct discussions between two military Powers with certain specified responsibilities. They have now ended, and we thought that, on the whole, it was legitimate that those two Powers should be free to discuss the matter privately between themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN

British Compensation Claims

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government's recent note on the United States' proposals for a treaty with Japan included arrangements for payment of compensation to British nationals for loss of property, etc., in the Philippines and other parts of the Far East at the hands of the Japanese.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the discussions about the Japanese peace treaty which are proceeding between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government.

Commander Noble: Will the Minister do everything possible to see that compensation is paid to these people? It really does seem very unfair, because American nationals who were concerned in the same way have been covered by an Act of Congress passed in 1946.

Mr. Morrison: We have this matter under consideration, and I hope that a statement can be made about it shortly.

Sir Alvary Gascoigne

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Sir Alvary Gascoigne has left Tokyo; why he did not have a farewell meeting with General MacArthur; whether he had a farewell meeting with the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary of the Japanese Government; what was the date of his departure; and why his permanent departure from Tokyo was not announced by his Department until the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, asked for information on the subject.

Mr. H. Morrison: Sir Alvary Gascoigne left Tokyo on 7th February on the expiry of his normal term of duty as United Kingdom Political Representative in Japan. Before he left, Sir A. Gascoigne had farewell interviews with General MacArthur and with the Japanese Prime Minister, who also holds the post of Foreign Minister. The Foreign Office do not normally give publicity to the movements, as distinct from the appointments, of His Majesty's representatives.

Mr. Teeling: In view of the fact that the Minister of State, at a very late hour on Thursday night, and about two minutes from the end of the Adjournment debate, said that Sir Alvary Gascoigne had not seen General MacArthur, will the right hon. Gentleman stress that that was a quite natural slip? Further, will he bear in mind the considerable anxiety felt by British subjects who now want to get into Japan—especially from Hong Kong—at the fact that there is now no British representative of Sir Alvary's standing there to try to induce S.C.A.P. not to be so strict and rigid about the number of people they are allowing to enter that country at present?

Mr. Morrison: I am glad to have the opportunity to clear up the misunderstanding, and I am grateful to the hon. Member. My hon. Friend the Minister of State informs me that he intended to say that Sir Alvary Gascoigne saw General MacArthur. He was not aware, until he saw the OFFICIAL REPORT, that he had been guilty of a slip of the tongue; and steps were immediately taken to correct the mistake. I understand there are British representatives in Tokyo who are available to people who require their services.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Is a British representative taking the place of Sir Alvary Gascoigne?

Mr. Morrison: That is under consideration. It is a point which should be and will be considered very carefully.

Mr. Paton: May I ask my right hon. Friend, if no appointment has been made in succession to Sir Alvary Gascoigne, who is carrying out his former duties in Tokyo? Also, can my right hon. Friend give the House any information about the future employment of Sir Alvary?

Mr. Morrison: The last point does not arise. In the meantime Mr. Clutton is acting in Tokyo, and is available.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (H.M.S. "AMETHYST")

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Chinese Government with relation to the British Government's claims arising from the shelling of H.M.S. "Amethyst."

Mr. H. Morrison: None, Sir. No claim was made.

Mr. Blackburn: In view of the very serious facts concerning this case, and other grave matters, is it not high time that His Majesty's Government abandoned, as one basis of their Far Eastern policy, the belief that Mao Tse-tung will prove to be the chink in Stalin's armour?

Mr. Morrison: I will keep all those considerations in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.N.O. DRAFT COVENANT (PRESS FREEDOM)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct the representatives of His Majesty's Government in the General Assembly of the United Nations, at whose next session the revised Covenant on Human Rights is to be considered, to urge that the article relating to freedom of opinion and expression be revised so that it may refer specifically to infringements of freedom of the Press.

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. A specific reference to freedom of the Press might make it necessary to specify all the media of information for which freedom is to be assured, and it would be most difficult to do this satisfactorily.

Mr. Driberg: In that case, can my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied that it will be possible under this article as drafted, or re-drafted, to raise such matters as the attack of the present Argentine Government on some of the most distinguished newspapers in the world?

Mr. Morrison: I would draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to Article 14 of the United Nations Draft Covenant on Human Rights, paragraph 2 of which provides as follows:
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression;"—

Hon. Members: Prayers.

Mr. Morrison: Yes, if hon. Members behave themselves. I am all in favour of Prayers, particularly by the Opposition—
this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds regardless of frontiers, either orally,

in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through other media of his choice.
I think that should cover all the activities which are in the mind of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Does this document provide that no one may be compelled to belong to an association, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware how much distress this will cause to the Durham County Council?

Oral Answers to Questions — RE-ARMAMENT (ORGANISATION)

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the extended rearmament programme and the increasing demands on productive manpower, the scarcity of certain machinery and essential materials, he is contemplating any reorganisation of the various Departments concerned in order that stores and munitions procurement and production may be expedited.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir, not at present, but the Government have constantly in mind the need to keep the administrative machine fully adapted to its changing tasks.

Sir R. Glyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the reconstitution of the Ministry of Supply, after the war, Sir Oliver Franks stated that the organisation was adjusted for peace and that it was not an organisation for preparing for war?

Mr. Morrison: That may be so, Sir. I would observe, as a general proposition, that there is no finality in the organisation of Government Departments. They must adapt themselves according to the needs of the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAST DEFENCE (MATERIALS)

Lieut-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Defence what steps have been taken in the event of attack on this country for the provision of the necessary steel and iron to erect the defences around our coasts as were considered necessary during the late war.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): No special steps are considered necessary at the present time. Many of the


materials required are of kinds of which there would be substantial commercial stocks which could, if necessary, be drawn on in an emergency.

Sir T. Moore: Does the Minister consider that the recent unwarrantable interference with, and disturbance of, the iron and steel industry will facilitate the provision of this material when it is required?

Mr. Shinwell: There is no reason why it should hold up our re-armament programme.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC POWERS (STANDING GROUP)

Mr. Henry Hopkinson: asked the Minister of Defence the composition and the precise duties and powers of the Standing Group in Washington.

Mr. Donner: asked the Minister of Defence what are the precise duties and functions of the Standing Group of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Shinwell: The Standing Group, which is composed of representatives of the Chiefs of Staff of the United States, France and the United Kingdom, is responsible under the general authority of the North Atlantic Ministers of Defence, for the overall direction of the military activities of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The Standing Group also works in Washington in close consultation with a Military Representatives Committee on which are representatives of the North Atlantic Powers not represented on the Standing Group. The Standing Group has, of course, no authority outside the area covered by the North Atlantic Treaty.

Mr. Hopkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider opening negotiations with other interested Powers with a view to extending the sphere of activities of the Standing Group to strategic theatres in other parts of the world?

Mr. Shinwell: It is not for me to open such negotiations.

Mr. Hopkinson: Why not?

Mr. Shinwell: The matter has been under consideration.

Mr. Donner: Would the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position even more, in view of the Prime Minister's statement of 26th February that the Standing Group is in intimate touch with the Combined Chiefs of Staff, a body which does not exist?

Mr. Shinwell: The Combined Chiefs of Staff no longer exists. It has not existed since shortly after the end of the last war. But the Standing Group which, as I have already said, represents the Chiefs of Staff of the respective North Atlantic Treaty countries, is the effective substitute for what was the Combined Chiefs of Staff.

Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the sphere of operations of the Standing Group is definitely limited, whereas the functions of the Combined Chiefs of Staff at that time were over the whole world? Would he consider whether we should not take the initiative in trying to ensure that there is an organisation which enables effect to be given to an over-all strategic concept and not only an Atlantic concept?

Mr. Shinwell: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Combined Chiefs of Staff, in the last war, consisted exclusively of representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States. The Standing Group is designed to extend over an increased number of countries. It may well be that the organisation will require to be extended still further; but at the moment we are anxious to streamline the existing organisation to make it truly effective.

Mr. Eden: This is rather important. Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that what we seek, and what I think is really required, is not a larger number of members of the existing organisation, but that the existing organisation should cover the world so that decisions can be taken with all considerations in mind?

Mr. Shinwell: It must not be assumed that the countries represented in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation are not in consultation with countries outside the organisation. For example, we in the United Kingdom are in association on defence and other matters—but particularly as regards defence, which is now under consideration—with the Commonwealth countries who, with the exception of Canada, are not included in the North


Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The same applies to the United States and other countries.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Will all these organisations to which reference has been made and their relationships one with the other, be clearly set out in the White Paper which the Prime Minister has promised to give to the House on the subject of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation generally?

Mr. Shinwell: I think that is in contemplation, but I should like to make it clear that this organisation has only been in existence for a matter of 18 months. Obviously, there must be improvisation according to the circumstances.

Commander Noble: To amplify his reply a little more, can the Minister say how a decision would be reached as to the relative efforts that we should make, shall we say, in the Far East or in Europe?

Mr. Shinwell: The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is not concerned with the Far East.

Sir R. Glyn: Has the Standing Group anything to do with Pacific defence?

Mr. Shinwell: It has nothing to do with Pacific defence. It is confined to the North Atlantic area. That must be obvious from the designation of the organisation; but that does not preclude any of the countries in the organisation from associating themselves with other countries outside the Atlantic area on matters of defence.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN DEFENCE (ITALY)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Defence what recent conversations he has had with the Italian Government on matters relating to European defence.

Mr. Shinwell: I have had no conversations with the Italian Government on matters of defence except through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisaion.

Mr. Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to initiate such a discussion, particularly as we have it on record from the Leader of the Opposition that talking to the Italians is a task well within my right hon. Friend's capacity?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Gratuities

Mr. H. A. Price: asked the Minister of Defence why he has decided that proportionately increased bounties shall not be paid to officers and men who have completed short-term engagements in the Forces and are being retained beyond the period for which they enlisted.

Mr. Shinwell: The gratuities in question were related to engagements for fixed periods and the normal rule is that no further gratuity is given for additional service. The rates of gratuity are substantial, and I am satisfied that no departure from the normal rule is justified.

Mr. Price: Is the Minister aware that that decision has the effect, in the case of men who have completed four years' service, of reducing the financial reward by £25 per year for service which becomes compulsory as opposed to voluntary? Does the Minister regard that as being just?

Mr. Shinwell: I have said that the bounty already in existence is regarded as adequate.

Mr. Price: But that does not make it just.

Air Mail Parcels, Korea

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Defence if he will now say whether the charges for air mail parcels sent to our Forces in Korea can be reduced.

Mr. Shinwell: The Government's decision on this matter was announced in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) on 7th February.

Brigadier Clarke: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the high cost of air freight, of approximately 35s. for a 2 lb. cake, causes great hardship to parents who want to send the cake and a greater hardship to the men who cannot receive it as a result of this action?

Mr. Shinwell: I have already answered Questions about this several times. We are trying to devise something which will give satisfaction to those concerned.

Overseas Recruiting

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make arrangements for recruiting for all three


services to take place in territories under control of the Colonial Office, including any medical or technical examinations required.

Mr. Shinwell: It is not at present intended to open recruiting offices overseas, but the matter will be kept under review.

Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State for Air told the House last week that if men in Jamaica wanted to join the Royal Air Force they had to come all the way to this country for an examination? Does he not think that, in Colonial Territories where this would be easy, examination should be carried out on the spot; for example, as in Malta?

Mr. Shinwell: It is a fair point, I agree, if we want to recruit these men. At present, it is not intended to go beyond what we have already done.

Oral Answers to Questions — GRENADA (SITUATION)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. C. S. TAYLOR: TO ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about the dismissal of the superintendent of police in Grenada.

Mr. PETER SMITHERS: TO ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a further statement upon the situation in Grenada.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House, I will answer Questions Nos. 92 and 93.
As stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 14th March, the proposal to set up statutory wages councils has been favourably received both by employers and by labour, and it is the intention to set up these councils immediately the necessary legislation has been passed. A general return to work for a period of three weeks to enable further negotiations to take place was urged by the leader of the Grenada Mental and Manual Workers' Union, and the Governor informs me that there has now been a general resumption of work throughout the Island, with the exception of two or three estates where some details

have yet to be settled. All public works employees are back at work.
I regret to report, however, that there was some increase in cases of theft towards the end of last week. I also regret to say that, on 15th March, in self-defence, the police had to fire on a hostile crowd, which had assembled to march on the court house after eight persons had been arrested for stealing cocoa. Stones were thrown and several policemen were injured. The police, therefore, had to open fire; three persons were killed and three more were wounded.
The question of taking all possible measures to achieve the maximum degree of public security had been greatly exercising the Governor. He was not satisfied that the best use was being made of the police force, and decided that a change in command was necessary. The Governor, who must clearly have full discretion in such matters, therefore granted Colonel Donald leave pending the termination of his appointment. He appointed another officer, Brigadier Pickthall, who has had considerable police experience, to act as Superintendent of Police. A Deputy Superintendent has recently been appointed and is proceeding to Grenada as quickly as possible. At present an officer from Trinidad is acting as deputy.
The Governor is satisfied that certain measures of reorganisation which have been carried out will enable the best use to be made of the police, and I am glad to say that the situation over the weekend was much quieter. A report sent by the Governor yesterday afternoon informs me that there had been no reports of incidents during the previous 24 hours.

Mr. Smithers: As we are soon to go away for the Easter Recess, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Governor is now in a position to give effective protection to the lives and property of all citizens, and to prevent further outbreaks of looting and violence?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. The Governor now assures me that the arrangements which he has made will enable him to give that protection.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the Minister tell us—I did ask him about this 10 days ago—which are the estates where there has been serious material damage and


which are the estates where work has not been resumed?

Mr. Griffiths: No, Sir. I am awaiting a full report on the damage that has been done and on those estates where damage has been caused. As soon as I have that report, I will make it known publicly.

Mr. Taylor: I understand that there were two serious charges against the former Superintendent of Police. One was that he did not make sufficient use of the police forces' available to him, and the other was that he concealed the seriousness of the situation. Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what evidence and on whose evidence these charges were made?

Mr. Griffiths: No, Sir. I am awaiting a full report from the Governor. In the meantime, if he found that, in the light of the existing circumstances, this change in command was necessary, I think he was right to make it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In view of the very great anxiety in the House and the country for the preservation of law and order in Grenada, will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement as soon as the House reassembles after Easter, and give us the latest possible information about the situation?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. I will.

Mr. Harrison: When the police fired on the demonstrators was it during that period that the Superintendent of Police omitted to do something, with the result that the Governor asked for his resignation?

Mr. Griffiths: I would rather await the fuller report on what happened.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL (INCREASED OUTPUT)

Mr. Murray: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has any statement to make in regard to the prospects for coal supplies to industry during the remaining winter months.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): The House may recall that in a debate on 1st February, I said that, in view of the greatly increased consumption of coal and the necessity to

build up power station stocks, I had informed the Federation of British Industries, the Trades Union Congress and Chairmen of the Regional Boards for Industry in the Emergency Committee of the National Production Advisory Council for Industry that it might not be possible during the winter months, to deliver to industrial firms more than 85 per cent., on the average, of the coal which I had planned that they should have. I expressed the hope, which I had previously expressed to the Emergency Committee, that industry would help the nation and themselves by exercising every reasonable economy in their use of coal. To that invitation, industry in general made a very handsome response, for which I should like to thank all concerned.
Fortunately, in addition to the economies in consumption which were made, the output of coal from the mines also substantially improved. Thanks to these better supplies, it has proved possible to deliver to industry, not 85 per cent., but, on the average, 95 per cent. of their programmed requirements. I think it is now possible to say that we shall maintain a high rate of delivery during the remaining weeks before the winter period ends; that is to the end of April.

Mr. Churchill: The end of April?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, the end of April. The coal year is divided into a winter period and a summer period, each of six months. I have also every hope that industrial stocks will, at the end of April, be as high as we had originally planned, namely, three weeks consumption.
I think it is desirable that the directors and managers of industrial firms should know how considerably the situation has improved. But I add that it remains of the highest importance, not only for this year, but for the future, that industry should make the most efficient possible use of the coal which they receive, and that modern methods and equipment to this end should be generally and speedily introduced.

Mr. Murray: I am sure that the House is delighted to hear such a splendid statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] These things are even delightful to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite some-


times. While I am sure we are all delighted to hear the news which the Minister has imparted to the House, and while I am sure that the country also will be delighted to read the Minister's statement, I wonder if my right hon. Friend can tell the House whether, in view of his statement about the high stocks in the country, there is any prospect that we will be able to resume normal exports in the near future?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I should not like today to make any promise about that.

Mr. Braine: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just told us, can he further inform the House whether he is now in a position to restore the cuts recently made in the coal allocation to the railways; and, secondly, can he now state whether every medical priority certificate for coal can be immediately honoured?

Mr. Noel-Baker: As a result of Questions by hon. Members in the House, I made a special inquiry in all regions about the honouring of hardship certificates, and I have been assured by every region that there has not been one single case of a failure to honour them.

Mr. Braine: On a point of order. Am I not entitled to a reply from the Minister to the first part of my question?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The railways are re-instituting their former services as from the 19th of this month.

Sir H. Williams: The 19th March has passed. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean April?

Mr. Ronald Williams: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any information as to the success, if any, which has attended the efforts for improving the efficiency in the use of fuel and power?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. I think progress is continually being made, but there is still a great deal to be done. I am now appointing a very strong committee of experts to help me in an advisory capacity on this subject. I have not all the members yet, but Captain Gregson is to be the chairman, and Mr. Boon, Mr. Oliver Lyle and Dr. Sarjant of Sheffield are to be members, and I think the House may take it that the committee will be very strong.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: May we be allowed to ask the right hon. Gentleman to convey to the miners the gratitude of the country for the special efforts they have made in this time of crisis, but, in view of the fact that it would not be fair to expect them to continue indefinitely with the extra tension of their efforts, and bearing in mind that at the end of this coal winter we shall start with extremely low stocks as compared with the past, will the Minister press on in every way with the more permanent solution of what still remains a very serious problem?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall certainly transmit the message which he was good enough to suggest. Secondly, I have every hope that, in fact, our distributed coal stocks at the end of April will be higher than they were last year, and, perhaps, higher than for several years. In the third place, I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, of course, the miners could not be expected to go on working every Saturday throughout the year as they have done up to Easter.

Sir H. Williams: Why not?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Try going down a coal mine and see. I have asked the Coal Board and the National Union of Miners to meet me next week to consider output for the rest of the year.

Mr. Teeling: With Easter coming on now, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this hopeful prospect for the future is going to make it possible for those in the holiday and seaside resorts to get some extra lighting over this coming weekend, which is really very important to our constituents?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The hon. Gentleman and one or two of his colleagues from seaside resorts were good enough to raise this matter with me last night. I have it under consideration, but I should not like to give him an answer just now. Indeed, I cannot do so now.

Mr. Teeling: This is an urgent matter as there are only a few days to go.

Mr. Hamilton: When the message from the Opposition has been conveyed to the miners, will the Minister undertake to bring back to the House their reply?

Sir H. Williams: The Minister gave the wrong date. He must mean next month.

Mr. Teeling: On a point of order. In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to give me an answer to the question I put to him between now and Easter, would he announce it on the B.B.C.?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY FREIGHTS AND FARES

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any statement to make on railway freights and fares before the House adjourns for the Easter Recess.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I may be in a position to make a statement tomorrow morning, but I cannot give a definite undertaking to do this.

Mr. Thorneycroft: In view of the real urgency and importance of a decision on this vital matter, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to make a very special effort to inform the House before we go away for the Easter Recess?

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir. I am very anxious to do that, and I am hoping that will be possible.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: Can the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week—I mean, after Easter.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Next week, I hope, the House will be in Recess.

Mr. Eden: That was a slip.

Mr. Ede: I agree, but attention is usually drawn to such slips.

The business for the week after the Easter Recess will be as follows:

TUESDAY, 3RD APRIL—Committee and remaining stages of the Supplies and Services (Defence Purposes) Bill.

Consideration of Purchase Tax (No. 3) Order.

WEDNESDAY, 4TH APRIL—Report and Third Reading of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill.

If there is time, Report and Third Reading of the Long Leases (Temporary Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.

THURSDAY, 5TH APRIL—Committee and remaining stages of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by about 6.30 p.m.

Report and Third Reading of the Sea Fish Industry Bill, and of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Bill.

FRIDAY, 6TH APRIL—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Eden: The Leader of the House may remember that last Monday the Foreign Secretary announced a relatively colossal increase in the amount required in respect of the Festival Gardens. We then asked him that the House should be asked to approve these new moneys —£1 million in excess of the Estimate— and he undertook that that would be done at the earliest possible moment. Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this matter is not in our "bill of fare" for the week after the Easter Recess?

Mr. Ede: I understand that a Bill is being prepared to deal with that subject, and I have no doubt that we can have conversations as to a suitable time at which to take it.

Mr. Eden: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it is not a question of a suitable time to take it. The only suitable time to take a debate of this kind is the earliest time, because only Parliament can approve these moneys. Surely, the Bill cannot be very difficult to draw. [HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know?"] Of course, it cannot. Bills have been drawn much more quickly on many occasions. Why cannot we be told immediately after Easter; or is there, perhaps, some further big increase in the amount?

Mr. Ede: No, the sum is not being further increased. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is the right hon. Gentleman sure?"] If I was not sure I would not say. I recognise the urgency of the matter and I shall do what I can to see it is expedited.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is it not the rule that the Civil Contingencies Fund,


as far as possible, shall never be used to provide money without the earliest possible introduction of a Supplementary Estimate or something similar?

Mr. Ede: This matter is to be dealt with by Bill.

Mr. Eden: When the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary made a statement on Monday we did not press then for an immediate Bill because he said it would be presented at the earliest possible moment. The right hon. Gentleman in his Parliamentary experience must know that many times Bills have been presented in one week, if they covered expenditure not allowed by statute. This House should be extremely careful before it allows the Government to incur expenditure which is not covered by Statute.

Mr. Ede: I have no quarrel with that statement and I shall endeavour to have the Bill available when the House resumes.

Mr. Ellis Smith: May I raise another point. Is it not usual to have the Economic Survey published by this time? Is it not the practice that it is published in order that hon. Members may consider it prior to the Budget debate? If so, will my right hon. Friend take steps to see that it is published as soon as possible?

Mr. Ede: I understand that it is usual for this report to be published a week before the Budget debate.

Mr. Eden: We have been repeatedly assured that a White Paper was being prepared in respect of the Supreme Commander, Atlantic. When will that White Paper be available so that we can have the long-delayed debate?

Mr. Ede: I have consulted with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence and he assures me it will be available as soon as possible after Easter.

Mr. Churchill: We have waited a great deal. Could we not have anything definite on that? What does "as soon as possible after Easter" mean?

Mr. Ede: I am quite sure the House desires that when this White Paper is published it shall be as full as possible, and as soon as the information that will

enable it to be as full as possible is available, it will be printed.

Mr. Churchill: That adds very little illumination to the light, or lack of light, previously playing on this topic. Would it not be desirable that the matter should be debated before the Budget is introduced? Can we have an assurance that the White Paper will be laid in time for us to have a debate on the subject, with reasonable notice, before the Budget is introduced?

Mr. Ede: As I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman realises, this matter does depend upon the consultations with other countries, and we are not entirely our own masters in the rate at which the discussions can proceed, as is inevitable in an international arrangement of this kind. But I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall do all I can to ensure that he has the document as soon as possible.

Mr. Churchill: If the delay continues not only day after day and week after week but month after month, will the right hon. Gentleman realise that we shall be forced to recur to what we said we would do before, and put down a Motion to discuss it?

Mr. Ede: Nothing that I have said is to be taken as withdrawing in any way from any rights the Opposition have in the matter, and I am quite sure their desire, as ours, is that this very important international matter should be discussed in a way that will help towards a full understanding of the issues involved.

Sir Ralph Glyn: May I revert to the Festival of Britain? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that when the Bill is being drafted not only will the finances of Battersea Park be considered but the over-spending on the South Bank also so that it might be included in the same Bill?

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member will recognise I am not departmentally responsible in this matter, but I shall see that the point he has made is drawn to the attention of the Minister who will be in charge of the Bill.

Sir H. Williams: As the decision about the North Atlantic Command was made six months ago, surely His Majesty's Government must have been aware of all the


documents. Why then delay publication of what they were familiar with six months ago?

Mr. Ede: That particular decision was reached some time ago, but there are other matters, including other appointments, that are still outstanding and it is necessary to be able to report them in order that the document shall be complete.

KOREA (OPERATIONS)

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker and that of the House, I should like to make a brief statement on the course of operations in Korea.
In my last statement I was able to report the existence of a favourable military situation in Korea. This trend has continued and the initiative is now with the forces of the United Nations. There is no doubt that the offensive of the United Nations forces is meeting with success. This policy is characterised by limited but forceful advances designed to destroy enemy forces rather than to achieve spectacular territorial gains.
It is not easy to give an accurate assessment of enemy losses, but as an example it is estimated that in a six-day period during the present United Nations offensive, the enemy is believed to have lost 18,000 killed and a similar number wounded. Of the latter, a large proportion no doubt died from want of proper care and medical attention. Heavy bombers have constantly attacked installations and communication centres, and with the advent of spring and longer daylight, the opportunities for this form of attack will increase.
My last statement covered the period up to 20th February. On that day, the position was that in the west the 1st and 9th Corps had secured the south bank of the Han river and in the centre of the peninsula the 10th Corps had succeeded in halting a strong Chinese counter-offensive directed towards Wonju.
On 21st February, 9th and 10th Corps launched an attack in the centre of the peninsula to straighten out the bulge in our line caused by the Chinese counter-offensive. The British 27th Brigade led this attack towards the North-east from Chipyong. The Canadian Battalion had

by this time joined 27th Brigade and saw their first front line action during this operation. I am informed that they gave an excellent account of themselves.
A slow and methodical advance, against varying opposition, continued in weather conditions which were the reverse of favourable. Low cloud hampered air support of the ground forces, and deep mud gravely complicated the problem of normal supply to the advancing units. To overcome these difficulties air supply was resorted to, and by 2nd March the bulge in our line had been completely eliminated. After a brief pause for regrouping, the United Nations Army launched a further offensive on the 7th March with the object of keeping the enemy off balance and still further disrupting any plans which he may have had for launching a counter-offensive.
Seoul was re-occupied in strength on 16th March by United States 1st Corps, to which the British 29th Brigade is attached, and units of this Corps are now well north of the town. In the centre of the peninsula, which has been the scene of the hardest fighting, 9th and 10th Corps are north of an east-west line through Hongchon, while on the east coast, South Korean units are some ten miles south of the 38th Parallel.
Throughout the land fighting, French, Belgian, Dutch, Greek and Turkish troops have given strong support. The French Battalion was recently awarded a United States Presidential citation. This was to mark the gallant stand made by this battalion early in February at Chipyong.
During the period under review, His Majesty's ships and aircraft of the Royal Navy, together with ships of the Royal Canadian, Australian and New Zealand Navies, have been engaged in providing gunfire and air support and maintaining the blockade of the west coast of Korea in support of the United Nations Army offensive. Commonwealth Naval units, with protective air coyer provided by aircraft from the light carrier H.M.S. "Theseus," gave close supporting fire to the United Nations advances on the west coast from Inchon across the Han River to the limit of the present offensive in the vicinity of Pukhan River.
H.M.S. "Theseus," working alternatively with U.S. Carrier "Bataan" as averaged 50 sorties per day in good


weather, and the work of both ships has earned the highest praise from all concerned. During recent operations H.M.S. "Belfast," accompanied by the Australian Destroyer "Bataan," encountered miles of pack ice, some of the ice floes being 20 feet across. The weather has been intensely cold; as much as 23 degrees of frost were recorded.
Since 20th February, Vice-Admiral Andrewes of the Royal Navy has been in command of the United Nations blockade and escort forces operating in Korean waters. His ships include those of the Commonwealth, United States and Dutch Navies.
Aircraft of the Royal Air Force continue to play a full part in these operations. Sunderland flying boats, averaging between 450 and 500 flying hours a month, are maintaining patrol and search activity over Korean waters in co-operation with United Nations Naval Forces. Hastings and Dakota aircraft are carrying reinforcements to the battle area, and are ensuring the evacuation of wounded personnel with a minimum of delay. Aircraft of the Royal Australian and South African Air Forces are assisting in all these tasks.
I regret to inform the House that, since making my previous statement, the following casualties have been suffered by naval and land forces: killed and died of wounds, 20. The number of wounded is 65, and three are missing, who are believed to be prisoners of war. The Royal Air Force has so far suffered no casualties.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to add to the statement he made last time with regard to names of prisoners of war and their whereabouts, or any further information concerning our prisoners of war in enemy hands?

Mr. Shinwell: I believe that some names have been sent in to the War Office; I am not quite sure about the Royal Air Force. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would put down a Question to the respective Ministers.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is advantage being taken of the present relatively favourable military situation to re-open peace efforts?

Mr. Shinwell: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Blackburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman immediately consult with the Attorney-General about the fact that the "Daily Worker" is giving advance information about casualties, is attributing to our captured soldiers and airmen anti-British and anti-United Nations statements, which are criminal offences for them, and is acting for our enemies in Korea as "Lord Haw-Haw" acted for our enemies in the last war? Will the right hon. Gentleman immediately consider whether these treasonable activities ought not to be the subject of criminal proceedings?

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir. I will bring the matter to the notice of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Blackburn: I am much obliged.

Mr. James Hudson: Does it remain a major object in the advance of the United Nations Forces that they shall not proceed, apart from minor tactical movements, beyond the 38th Parallel?

Mr. Shinwell: I believe that is the present intention.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: The right hon. Gentleman was reluctant to give an estimate of the total casualties which the enemy are considered to have suffered. He did, however, give the casualties for six days, which presumably he supposes to be representative. At the rate of 6,000 a day, which was the figure he gave, the enemy's casualties must have reached 1¾ million since the beginning of the campaign. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting? Is that a reasonable figure?

Mr. Shinwell: The fact that the figures are very severe on one day, does not mean that they are the same on every day.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Was the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the figures for these six days were representative, or were they exceptionally high casualties on that occasion?

Mr. Shinwell: These figures have been furnished. I am anxious to furnish the House with all the information I can about the state of the enemy's forces and the number of casualties which have occurred. I have received this information. I am very anxious at the same time


not to give the House information which cannot be regarded as reasonably accurate.

Mr. Driberg: In view of this morning's report of a complete ban on all mention of the 38th Parallel in news reports from Korea, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no major advance northwards beyond that parallel without full consultation with all those concerned, including His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Shinwell: I have already said that these are questions which it appears to me ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Harold Davies: Has my right hon. Friend any confirmation or denial of the allegations which have been made that a major menace exists in the Korean campaign in the form of bubonic plague and smallpox? If he has any such information, can he tell us whether we are taking medical precautions to combat any likelihood of this disease breaking out among our own troops.

Mr. Shinwell: I am glad to say there is no evidence that bubonic plague and a peculiar form of smallpox, which are endemic in the northern part of Korea, have affected our forces. I understand, however, that many casualties have occurred both from bubonic plague and smallpox among Northern Koreans, and presumably among the Chinese forces, but we cannot be expected at this stage to render them any assistance of a medical kind.

Brigadier Peto: I understand that the Minister said there had been no casualties in the Royal Air Force. Does that refer to the period since his last report?

Mr. Shinwell: I made very careful inquiry about this matter. When I was first informed about it I thought it might be regarded as unusual, but the latest information I have is that so far there have been no casualties.

Brigadier Peto: Since the right hon. Gentleman's last report?

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, since the last report. This is the latest report. I cannot speak about the period up to today, but within the last week. I do not want any

misunderstanding about this. I am informed that so far there have been no casualties among members of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Minister give some information about the South Koreans whom we are supposed to have gone into Korea to liberate? Is he aware that the Agent-General for Relief in Korea has said that there are 3½ million refugees and that if this fighting goes on for another month there will be famine in Korea? Does not my right hon. Friend realise it is time this senseless slaughter came to an end?

Mr. Shinwell: I must say that neither the United Nations nor the United Kingdom are responsible for beginning the aggression in Korea. If heavy casualties have occurred in Southern Korea, the responsibility must rest with the Northern Koreans.

BILL PRESENTED

RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) (SCOTLAND) (NO. 2) BILL

"to provide for establishing river purification boards in Scotland and for conferring on or transferring to such boards functions relating to the prevention of river pollution; to make new provision for maintaining or restoring the cleanliness of the rivers and other inland waters and the tidal waters of Scotland in place of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, and certain other enactments; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, "presented by Mr. McNeil; supported by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General for Scotland, Mr. Thomas Fraser and Miss Herbison; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 86.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

House to meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'clock; no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'clock; and at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

House, at its rising Tomorrow, to adjourn, till Tuesday, 3rd April.—[Mr. Ede.]

COUNCIL FOR WALES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House takes note of the Memorandum on the activities of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire, Command Paper 8060."—[Mr. Ede.]

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Watkins: May I thank my right hon. Friend, on behalf, I am certain, of all Welsh hon. Members, for the opportunity to discuss this Report this afternoon. At the same time, I want on behalf of Welsh hon. Members to register our bitter resentment at the fact that we have only two hours and 50 minutes for this discussion and to register disappointment, too, at the fact that the Report has not come before the House earlier in spite of the fact that it was made in July, 1950, and placed before hon. Members in October, 1950. The document itself has received universal approval from all shades of political opinion, and I am certain that I am speaking on behalf of all sides of the House when I say to the Chairman and members of the Council, "Thank you very much for the very hard work you have done in presenting these figures, documents and reports to the House and to the nation."
In 1948 I suggested some items for the agenda of the Council and I am glad to see that some of them have been the subject of deliberation. In the debate on the Welsh White Paper in 1949 I suggested that not only should the Council make recommendations to the Government but that the Government should consult the Council frequently, particularly on matters which very much concerned the Welsh nation. I am sorry once again to have to state that the Council were not consulted upon the Towy afforestation scheme—a matter of vital interest to the Welsh nation and particularly to its agriculture, with which I shall deal presently.
I am glad to find that the Council did a good job by dividing its work between three panels—one to deal with unemployment, one to deal with marginal land and one to deal with rural depopulation. They are three very important aspects of Welsh life. In the recent debate on Welsh affairs a great deal was said about unemployment and the employment of disabled persons, and I am certain that I

can tell the Welsh nation that the Members representing industrial and other constituencies are doing a good job by constantly approaching Ministers about this very important problem.
I want now to deal with two important aspects of the Report—marginal land and rural depopulation. The problems and suggestions in the reports on both subjects are inter-related. Since the publication of the Report this House, in its wisdom, has passed the Livestock Rearing Act which will give a great impetus to the work of those who are concerned in marginal land, but I venture to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that the provisions of that Act should be publicised a great deal more than were the provisions of the Hill Farming Act, not only by literature but, I suggest, by arranging conferences of the people concerned. Further, I suggest we should even canvass or try to sell the scheme so that we may get something done about marginal land. After all, we are concerned with 336,000 acres of land. I hope the Minister will tell us that he will give consideration to the early approval of schemes put forward under the Act.
The important part of the Report on marginal land is that dealing with a pilot scheme. I do not want to be controversial, particularly with my own colleagues, but I must point out that a lot of money has been spent on development schemes throughout the world, so surely we can have a development scheme on marginal land. Here is an opportunity. It says so in paragraph 75. What is the Government's reply to that recommendation about a pilot scheme for marginal land?
I notice that there are 79,000 acres of common land in Wales and I am certain that a great deal of it could be used for food production. The trouble is that, as democrats, we in Wales have thought that the common land belonged to the people. May I say this to the younger generation: it is no use the land belonging to the people if they do nothing with it. I should welcome some policy statement from the Minister about what is to happen to that common land, whether a survey can be undertaken and whether something can be done to plan food production on it—at the same time safeguarding the interests of the commoners.
I welcome the paragraphs in both the Report and the White Paper which we discussed some time ago which deal with agriculture, but there are one or two points which I must again submit to the Minister and upon which I seek a reply. The first concerns farm labour. There has been a decline in the amount of farm labour available and it is, therefore, important, especially for the remote farms in Wales and elsewhere in the country, that this situation should be borne in mind when we are planning the call-up, particularly where we have family farms and where the only person working on a farm might be liable to be called-up. In such circumstances it is difficult to envisage anyone replacing that labour.
Next, I refer to the calf rearing subsidy scheme. I am disappointed that it is to come to an end shortly, for I would much prefer to see a gradual reduction in the subsidy than its complete abolition. A great number of these farmers bought calves on the assumption that they would benefit until the cattle were slaughtered, but they will not now benefit and the real purpose of the scheme will not be achieved.
The most important thing both for those on marginal land and those on hill farms is security of tenure, because land is still sought by other Government Departments. I refer in particular to afforestation, and incidentally, may I here congratulate the Council on doing something which hon. Members and others have not been able to do—persuading the Minister of Agriculture and the Forestry Commission to give evidence on what they intend to do in Wales? I want the War Department, in particular, to be careful about the question of land which they are taking over in Wales and I want the Minister of Town and Country Planning to give much earlier than has been the case in the past the results of inquiries which have been made about land requirements. There was an inquiry in Brecon in July, 1950, and we are still awaiting the decision of the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
Turning to the important aspect of depopulation, I would point out that this is very acute in my constituency. The causes are unfortunately very alarming, but the panel have faced this great problem very well indeed. Perhaps I may suggest that one major cause of the de-

cline in rural population over a great number of years is written on every page of the report of the Clement Davies' Committee—and that is the word "poverty"; that is a reason for the decline.
I was very much concerned that the tables in the Report show that, whereas the population for Wales as a whole increased by 41.92 per cent. between 1891 and 1948, in rural Wales the population declined by 8.23 per cent. In another statement I find that Wales has not yet returned to its 1931 population, whereas the population of England has increased by 9 per cent. In my own constituency, in the north part of Brecon I find that the density of population is only 40 to the square mile, whereas in the South Wales coalfield it is 1,600 to the square mile. The result of all this is that 25 per cent. of the people of Wales live in 75 per cent. of the area. The County Councils Association mentions in a report for the Boundary Commission that it would be possible to have a population, for local government purposes, in each county of 100,000. Seven counties in Wales would come out of that category altogether, and would no longer be considered as counties. That is the real extent of the problem.
I want to ask the Government what positive action is proposed in relation to paragraph 180. Are we going to have a further inquiry by a body with a complete and independent secretariat, to get something done about it? I am certain that that is the real answer. I know that this rural population problem extends throughout the world, but it would be no answer on the part of the Government merely to say that. It reminds me of the story of a Baptist woman going to a church meeting where the financial position of the church was being discussed; and after hearing a miserable report of the finances, she got up and said, "Thank God, we are not as bad as the Methodists.
I want to examine the causes of the drift from the rural areas and the situation which results from this drift at the present time. The Report brings out conclusively that it is caused by lack of amenities. Let us consider them. Let us consider houses. Was there ever a greater indictment than that contained in paragraph 107? I am not going to quote it, because hon. Members have probably read it, or will wish to study it at leisure. Nevertheless, it is a great indictment. Looking at the housing returns


up to 31st December, 1950, I find that there are 20 rural district councils and 27 urban councils in rural areas that have built only 50 houses or less within the last five or six years, an average of 10 houses a year.
I refer again to the Clement Davies Report, which has been quoted before on many occasions, and its reference to tuberculosis in Wales. It states:
While being aware of these difficulties and giving them due weight, we are, however, of opinion that authorities in those counties have fallen short of their duties and of their obligations. We find that they had insufficient regard for their powers or their duties, or the advice which was tendered to them by their officers. In fact, they have failed in their trusteeship as guardians of the health and welfare of the people who elected them.
In view of this, is it not time that the Minister of Local Government and Planning, or whoever is responsible, should bring the powers of default into operation, so that houses can be built in the countryside? An important aspect of the matter is, that active authorities that have built houses are penalised because of the alarming deficits in housing revenue as per Table 8, a matter which the Welsh authorities have brought to the notice of the Government on several occasions. Well, I think that that is enough of the indictment with regard to housing, and I hope that something will be done about it.
We come next to water supplies and sewerage. The number of houses without piped water supply in the rural areas is very great, and in Montgomeryshire is 90 per cent, and in Cardiganshire 73 per cent., and in Radnorshire 61 per cent. That is an indictment with regard to water supplies. I ask the Government, what has happened to the policy with which I think everybody in Wales will agree, irrespective of what party he belongs to, is necessary—the policy of nationalisation of the water supplies? What has happened to it? If we are afraid to apply it to the whole country I am certain we should experiment with it in Wales, because at the present time there is a great deal of delay in the schemes which are put forward to the Ministry. There seems to be a lack of coordination between the local authorities, and I should like something to be done about that.
Then there is electricity supply—a very important amenity in rural districts. I was disappointed when some time ago in

this House it was stated that there would be cuts in rural electrification. I am glad that the Consultative Committee in North Wales drew the attention of the Area Board to the effect of the cuts in rural electrification on agriculture in North Wales. I am more alarmed still about the position in South Wales, because on reading the last report of the Area Board, I find that there is a sort of insinuation that only self-remunerating schemes will be looked into and carried out as a priority.
Surely, under nationalisation that is the very sort of thing we wanted to abolish? Surely, before nationalisation that was the very thing we were up against? If we take postal services for an example, suppose it was decided that the Post Office would deliver letters only where it would be remunerative to do it, then in some parts of my constituency they would not see a post at all. In Radnorshire 80 per cent. of the population have no electricity; in Cardigan and Carmarthen, 70 per cent. have none; and in Pembrokeshire 50 per cent.
Another amenity is that of roads in country districts. It is a very important one indeed, of which I have spoken several times in this House. I read in the Report that some land would not be marginal if there were better access roads. The roads are so bad in some parts that the exports from the farms are only possible on foot. The Council for Wales consider that a general review of the unclassified roads in relation to the rural areas is urgent and important. I should like the Minister of Transport to take particular note of that. We, of course, gladly welcome what this Government have done in the way of making 50 per cent. grants available for Class 3 roads since April. 1946. I should like to point out that 8,419 miles of unclassified roads are still the responsibility of the county councils on the local rates, and there has been an increase of only 15 miles of the roads classified as Class 3 roads since 1946.
Surely, as agriculture is a dollar saver, something should be done to improve this position. In my own constituency there are at present 40 farms that have applied for assistance under the hill farming scheme for various improvements, so that the produce can be got off the farms. It would mean that 20¼ miles of roads would have to be improved and maintained, and it would cost the local


authority of which I am a member £2,000 a mile to put those roads in good condition for that purpose. Surely, such a charge cannot be borne by the local authority itself.
If the Ministry of Fuel and Power want to get outcrop coal they make the necessary roads, maintain them and pay for them themselves, and if the War Office wanted materials sent to parts of Wales they too repaired the roads and gave sufficient grants for the work to be done. Cannot some Government Department, such as the Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of Transport, make some grant for this purpose?
The most important question in regard to local amenities is money. I would draw attention to the fact that the product of a 1d. rate is deplorable at the present time in some of the rural counties of Wales. We are given information about this in table 12, where we are told that there are five counties in which a 1d. rate realises under £1,000. Local government cannot carry on its services in these circumstances. I find that rural counties are having to increase their rates for the next financial year. Carmarthen are increasing their rates by 6s. 6d., Pembroke by 4s. 6d., Montgomery by 3s. 6d. and Anglesey by 2s. 6d.
Not only that, but loan debts are piling up. The loan debt in Breconshire in 1950 was £134,000, but at the present time the figure is standing at £227,000. Breconshire is the highest true rated county in both England and Wales, the very county where rural de-population is so alarming. I suggest to the Government that there ought to be a policy for these rural areas such as we have in the case of the industrial or development areas. Special grants ought to be available for these rural areas. That is not a new thing. It was recommended by the Hob-house Committee on Rural Housing. I want to see that administered by an elected body and not by a body such as the Trading Estates.
I am certain that I have given a great deal of material for thought to the Government. I realise that very little attention has been given to this Report, but I want to know what is to be done about it. My information is that those on the Rural Depopulation Panel have not met for the last four months. What is the reason

for that? Do they consider that their job is finished? They make many recommendations to inquire further into this or that, in which case how can that be done by not meeting? Or is it that they want some lead from the Government? I believe that they do need a lead to be given by the Government.
It is not information and facts that we want, because we have them already. Some people are of the opinion that we ought to have a Royal Commission to get more facts and figures. It is not evidence that we want, but real Parliamentary action. The people of Wales would feel that the Council and the Government were far more sincere if they knew that something was to be done. Although a great deal has been done from the economic standpoint in South Wales, we should like the same to be done for the rural areas. It is not until we can give the people economic freedom that we shall get the best results from the cultural point of view. I recommend this Welsh proverb to the House and the Government, and I hope that they will take heed of it—
Nid da lle gellir gwell,"
which means that it is not good if better is possible.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Like my constituency neighbour, I too wish that this Report had been debated earlier. I might add that I did my best, not knowing the decision of the Welsh Parliamentary Committee, to introduce this Report at some considerable length into my speech in the debate last December. That is one of the reasons why I shall be very short indeed today, especially in view of the fact that there are other Members who wish to speak. I should like to say how much we welcome the discussion on the problems of rural Wales to supplement the very useful debate we had on 5th December. I am also glad that this debate is not on the Motion for the Adjournment, and that the Government have taken the advice of those on these benches that the debate should take place on a formal Government Motion. I hope that this will be a precedent for debates of this kind in the future, whichever party may be in power.
On the problems of rural Wales other Members have far more intimate knowledge than I have, but on the


general problem, I must say, like the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins), that I have been profoundly shocked by some of the figures given in the Report. I strongly support him in regard to the housing figures. We are told that 45 per cent. of the rural houses in Wales need re-conditioning, and that 26 per cent. of the rural households are without piped water as against 6 per cent. for the rest of Great Britain. The hon. Member gave specific instances, such as Montgomery and Cardiganshire, where the rate is extraordinarily high. The general rate remains at 26 per cent., as opposed to 6 per cent. for other parts of Great Britain.
The hon. Member also spoke about the nationalisation of water. I cannot agree with what he had to say on this, nor I think will the ex-Minister of Health, now Minister of Labour, who at the Margate Conference in 1947 stated that nationalisation of our water supplies would not give us an extra drop of water. I would point out that of the £15 million left for rural water supplies under the Rural Water Act of 1944, introduced by the National Government before they broke op, only £152,000 has been spent on completing schemes for our water supplies in the Principality.
Apart from that, 47 per cent. of the Welsh roads are unclassified and deteriorating rapidly, and 45 per cent. of our agricultural homes are without electricity. This presents a sombre and depressing picture, and it is a very great challenge to all those in responsibility, both now and in the future, to do everything possible to make good the leeway in the provision of rural amenities.
The Council made two observations or recommendations that are of general interest and importance, and it is because of these that I wish to say a word in this debate. The first is in paragraph 183 of the Memorandum, where the Council speak of the need
for some organising and co-ordinating authority, with adequate powers, to promote the welfare and interest of the rural areas and the development of those areas.
We have no doubt whatsoever that this need exists. For example, let us compare the statement on depopulation, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, with the housing needs of the rural areas, which demand immediate definite and exceptional action

of considerable magnitude. The figures are given in paragraph 112, which I quoted in the debate last September, and they show quite clearly that the Principality, far from receiving exceptional attention, is actually getting less than its fair share so far as the building programme is concerned.
I have no doubt that that co-ordinating power should be a Cabinet Minister with special responsibility for Welsh affairs, as I said in the debate last December. I understand that the Government are not likely to accept this particular remedy, but I do ask them specifically whether they agree that the need for a co-ordinating authority exists. If so, perhaps the Minister of Agriculture will in reply tell us what action the Government propose to take.
Secondly, there is paragraph 183 in which the Council for Wales supports the demand of the Panel on Depopulation that the Council themselves should be given authority to undertake with an independent staff a more authoritative investigation into the problems of rural Wales, including all aspects of Welsh administration. I am not so dogmatic on this particular need as I am on the need for a co-ordinating authority, but I think that the work this Council has done is extremely valuable. The Report is excellent, and the members of the Council have indeed deserved well of Wales. Therefore, if the Government can see their way to provide the facilities for an investigation as proposed by this Memorandum we on these benches will welcome it, and we feel it essential that today in winding up this debate the Minister of Agriculture should give some indication of the Government's intentions on this point.
Although by birth I am a Welshman, I cannot claim to be a Member of Parliament for a Welsh constituency. It is therefore perhaps easier for me to say that I must protest that a day, or even a day and a half, is not a sufficient allocation of time in which to allow Wales to lick her national sores. It is no good the Postmaster-General coming along here with the perfect bedside manner, as he did last December, and telling us that we now have much to sing about. There has been in the past, far too much complacency about the Principality, and there is far too much complacency today, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will take the chance this evening to respond to the needs described in the


excellent Memorandum of the Council for Wales and indicate a genuine willingness to take advice offered in the Report.

4.43 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I find myself, rather surprisingly, in agreement with the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) when he says that a day and a quarter a Session is not enough in which adequately to discuss the affairs of Wales. I agree also with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins)—whom I congratulate on opening the debate today with such ability—that two hours and 50 minutes is certainly not enough for a discussion on the Report of the Council for Wales. I hope it is no reflection of the value the Government set either upon the Council or upon its Report.
I, too, congratulate the Council upon the Report they have issued. I think it is valuable, although I agree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor that it is in many ways very disquieting. It has brought into the full glare of the searchlight many conditions which all Welsh Members know to have existed in Wales, untouched and unchanged, for a very great number of years, and which have been disclosed in many reports before this. We have for a long time been familiar with the numbers of those who have been driven by economic necessity from the industrial areas, but in this Report we now come face to face with some very striking figures about the migration from the rural areas.
There is one particular fact which I should like to quote to the House, and that is that the proportion of people relative to the total population that left rural Wales between 1911 and 1948 is nearly as high as the proportion that left the whole of Wales. That is including the industrial areas. Breaking down that figure we find that the outward migration is as great from some rural areas as from boroughs like Merthyr Tydvil. Of course, this general drift away from the countryside is common to the whole of the United Kingdom; it has been going on gradually for the past 60 years throughout Britain. I believe it is unfortunate in its consequences wherever it occurs, but the consequences for us of a migration of this kind are far more disastrous than they could be in England,

because they constitute a threat to our national culture, to our language and to our distinctive way of life, since it is in these very areas that our culture is most firmly entrenched.
I believe that one of the most disturbing features of this Report is that, despite the fact that there has been a great improvement in agriculture and in the earnings of agriculture workers, and of workers in the countryside generally, the drift from the countryside is continuing. That is a very serious factor indeed, and I therefore agree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor when he says that we must, in the main, look for the cause of the migration, to the lack of amenities, particularly to the wretched housing conditions in the villages of Wales. Bad as housing conditions in rural England are, the housing conditions in rural Wales are ten times worse.

Mr. Peart: Mr. Peart (Workington) indicated dissent.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. I was a member of the Hobhouse Committee on Rural Housing, which issued a report, and it was not very easy to convince certain members of that Committee of the necessity of special action with regard to rural areas. The suggestion was made to them—which I may say, I supported—that the Committee should visit Wales to see some of the conditions. They did so, and that Committee completely changed its opinion about rural conditions after seeing some of the hovels that there were in the villages in Wales.

Mr. Cove: What a heritage from the past!

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I agree. What a heritage left by the Tory land robbers! I had decided not to be controversial today. I had hoped that controversy would be eschewed on every side, and the hon. Member should not have drawn me.
I believe that housing conditions in rural Wales are far worse than they are in England. What is being done? There is a programme whereby sites for 83,000 houses have been approved. What has been done since the war? Nine thousand houses have been built in 59 rural districts, and 4,000 to 5,000 are either under consideration or have been approved. If


we proceed at that rate it will be 30 years before that programme of 83,000 is fulfilled.
The hon. Gentleman has given figures about the needs of rural Wales. This will be a very serious thing if the problem is left virtually untouched, as it will be unless special action is taken. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the high proportion of houses in rural Wales without a piped water supply. In some counties the proportion is as high as 90 per cent., and I regret that that is the case in my own constituency. I am one who would heartily support a Bill for the nationalisation of water supplies, and I hope that the Government will bring in such a Measure as soon as possible.
The new generation will not put up with present-day conditions. The housewife in the countryside demands, and she is entitled to, as good amenities as the housewife in the towns. If she cannot get them, she will migrate with her husband and family to the towns.

Sir Herbert Williams: What about Llangefni?

Lady Megan Lloyd George: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, although the housing conditions are bad in Llangefni, up to three years ago it held the record for building new houses throughout the whole of the country. I am pointing out how well they are attempting to tackle this very difficult problem in the rural areas. These conditions are extremely detrimental, as hon. Members realise, to the health of the community, and the Report of the,Council for Wales has a very striking passage, which I would like to read to the House. They say:
The information given …
that is, on rural housing
discloses an extremely serious situation and causes the Panel grave anxiety as to the future of the areas affected and the health of the inhabitants, and it is evident to them that immediate, definite and exceptional action of considerable magnitude must be taken to meet the situation.
That is the view of the Council for Wales, after having undertaken this investigation into housing conditions. They have painted a grim and a desolate picture of housing in rural areas in Wales. I hope that somehow or other we may be able to find ways and means of

tackling this problem in an effective manner; but it is not going to be easy. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor said, it is a legacy which goes a long way into the past.
I would like to turn to one other aspect of rural population. That is the unemployment which still exists in rural areas, and which will persist unless new industries are brought into the countryside. We realise that a certain number of industries have come to rural Wales. In fact, the face of North Wales has become industrialised since the war and that industrialisation certainly began during the war.

Mr. Nigel Birch: Twenty years ago.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I think that the hon. Member will agree that it has been considerably accelerated. It has in Flintshire, as well. So far as the rural parts of Wales are concerned, including Caernarvonshire, Anglesey and Merioneth, it certainly has altered in the last ten years. It started during the war. A few of these factories have been closed, and others are in danger of being closed. I would ask the Government to see that a fair proportion of armament orders are sent into the factories in North Wales so that they will not have to close.
In the Report of the Council, they express certain misgivings about the future of industries in Wales. They say that the survival of many of the new industries in Wales which are subsidiary to larger concerns outside Wales may be highly problematical. I think that is quite correct, and it is something which we have to face. Therefore, I hope that, in the main, the development which will be undertaken in the future will be to encourage industries ancillary to agriculture, such as cheese and bacon factories.
There is one point which I would like to raise with the Minister, and ask him to deal with when he comes to reply. At the moment, cattle and sheep are taken outside Wales to Birkenhead for slaughter, whereas in the old days that was done locally. There were factories which gave employment to workers in the countryside in which the skins and wools were treated. I hope very much that the Government will give consideration to this problem because I think that local slaughtering would encourage local industries.
I hope particularly that encouragement will be given to the development of the woollen industry in Wales. The President of the Board of Trade has told us that we shall have to depend increasingly upon the woollen industry for our export trade to fill the gap which will be left by the exports which will be diverted into the re-armament programme. Here is an opportunity to develop the woollen industry in Wales. There is no reason why Wales should not have as important and as valuable a market in this respect as that of Scotland. After all, the quality of the goods is just as good; although I cannot say that the organisation in marketing is quite as good.

Mr. Grimond: Mr. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland) indicated dissent.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman dissents, but he has had a great many more opportunities than Welsh Members have had of putting the case for Scotland. I hope that in this matter of development, reorganisation and modernisation the Welsh industry will be given every encouragement. I think that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor spoke about special measures to assist industries in rural areas. I hope that the Government will make every use of the Development Commission which was set up under a beneficent Liberal Government in 1911.
The last point which I wish to make is about administration in Wales. The Council have made some very valuable recommendations. What is to happen to them? Are they to be put on to the shelf, or is any action to be taken on that Report? That is the test of the value of the Report, and, if I may say so with respect, the test of the value of the Council itself. We have all the evidence that we want; now we want some action. In their final paragraph the Council brings us right up against this problem. What do they say?
There is an urgent need for a more detailed and authoritative investigation by the Council, with full Government authority and direction … into all aspects of Welsh administration … and the relationships"—
and this is what I would ask the Government to note—
between Government Offices in Wales and central Departments.

The Council are not alone in thinking that it is time that such an investigation should take place. There is a great and growing number of people in all parties and of no party who believe that an investigation into this whole question of Government is urgent and should be undertaken without delay. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would allow me I would show him that I am not as nebulous as he would wish me to be.
What is the position today? The Minister of Agriculture is to reply to this debate. But the House is not merely discussing agricultural problems. We are discussing a Report which is concerned with rural housing. The right hon. Gentleman has no direct responsibility for that. We are discussing the question of establishing industries in rural areas. That is a matter for the Board of Trade. Local government is involved. That is a matter for the Minister of Local Government and Planning. Roads and communications have already been mentioned in the debate. Where is the Minister of Transport? Are we to get a reply from him?
In the six years in which we have had debates in Welsh affairs in this House, we have had a succession of Ministers replying to them and they were concerned with only one aspect of the problem of Wales. We have not yet done the whole round of Whitehall. It would take us 10 years to do that, and we have only had six years so far. I am not criticising the Government in this respect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Hon. Members on the Opposition side will get their opportunity later of doing so. As I say, I am not criticising the Government; it is the system which is wrong. The system, in my judgment, must be changed. Until we change it we have very little chance of getting to real grips with the problems which are brought to light in this Report of the Council of Wales.
The Foreign Secretary, at the inaugural meeting of the Council of Wales, said that the Government would do their best to help us. I do not doubt their sympathy at all. I do not doubt their good will. It is not lack of sympathy——

Sir H. Williams: But capacity.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: No, it is lack of understanding and it arises not from any conscious antagonism, not from any malign purpose, but from the simple


fact that they are not Welshmen. They are, in fact, strangers trying to move in a strange land. That is what it comes to. For instance, to suggest requisitioning land for military purposes in an area which is sacred to every Welshman was a thing that no Welshman would have done or, indeed, could have done. He would have been conscious of it. It is exactly as though a Welsh Secretary of State had suggested requisitioning the Derby racecourse for a tank training ground, which a Methodist synod would have done with pleasure.
I hope that the Government will not be deluded into thinking that it is only a handful of Nationalists, that it is only a few hotheads like the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. William Elwyn Jones), the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts), my hon. Friends on this bench and myself who are in favour of devolution. It is a movement which is gathering strength and momentum every day. I would remind the House that even the Council of Wales, appointed by the Government, are extremely uneasy about the present administrative set-up in Wales.
We are often told that Wales is an uneconomic area, but with what country is that not the case today? People say to us, "How will the granting of self-government help you there?" It is absolutely irrelevant; it is beside the point. It is a curious thing that such an argument was not raised when the question of granting self-government to Ceylon, India or Pakistan was contemplated. It is not raised when the Secretary of State for the Colonies is planning and encouraging the granting of self-government to colonial peoples—and that for a very good reason. It is because self-government is a vital element in the progress and development of those countries, and no one knows that better than the Lord Privy Seal, whom we are all glad to see sitting on the Treasury Bench this afternoon.
It is an interesting fact that all those countries that have gained their freedom in this century have developed a new industrial prosperity. I believe that a measure of devolution would be a challenge to the genius and courage of the Welsh people, and I myself believe that what Wales needs, what she wants— and she will be satisfied with nothing less

—is government of the Welsh people by the Welsh people, for the Welsh people

5.8 p.m.

Mr. David Grenfell: I should like to congratulate the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) on the first part of her speech. I am not quite sure that she was in order in the concluding passages, and I do not think we can do much good in this debate today if we pursue that line of argument on the subject of the future form of government of Wales. We have to consider the White Paper which has been presented to this House, and I should like to congratulate the authors of it. The Council of Wales have done nothing better to elucidate the nature of the problems in Wales.
Sometimes we find people looking at Wales through the wrong end of the telescope. Wales seems so far away and so small that it is utterly insignificant and unworthy of attention. That is the wrong way to look at it. The Council of Wales have not done that. There is evidence in their report that they have paid attention on the spot to the location and nature of the problems which beset that country. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will continue to stay with us this afternoon, although I do not propose entirely to concentrate on the aspects of rural life which concern agriculture. It is very important that we should have Government representatives during this debate, and I hope they will stay and hear the comments on the Report of the Council of Wales.
I myself am very anxious to examine Wales not as a patient, hopeless of recovery, and a diseased part of the United Kingdom, but as a community suffering from temporary dislocation of its industries and its common life. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs knows this side of Wales as I do. There- is a story of industrial development in Wales unequalled in any part of Britain. One hundred years ago Wales produced half the iron for Great Britain and one-third of the coal. In the years 1845 to 1848 there was great industrial activity there, and the flow of immigration was not out of Wales but into Wales for many decades. Hundreds of thousands of people came from the neighbouring counties of England into Wales. Irish people also in


very large numbers in the Hungry Forties came to Wales and settled there. I owe my very existence and my place in this House to the fact that my grandfather was a migrant into Wales from Cornwall. Such migrants came and married Welsh girls and became perfect citizens. I am now as proud of Wales as any man could be. I know no more intelligent people with a higher standard of popular culture anywhere in the world.
It would be very hard that this occasion should be one reflecting only the natural disquiet about the conditions in Wales. I want to start my speech by assuring everybody that this is not a proof of intrinsic constitutional disability on the part of Wales. I have said that people came from all parts of the United Kingdom to Wales. They formed a very large part of the population and manned our rapidly growing industries. We have also sent more goods out to the world's markets than any other part of the Kingdom. I remember going down to the quayside in Swansea, as a boy, and watching the ships, gallant little ships, leaving the port of Swansea to go round the Horn. They were to deliver their coal cargoes at places like San Francisco, Portland, Oregon and Chile, and would come back months later loaded to the hatches almost with grain, iron ore, copper ore, and other raw materials for the expanding industries of Wales. That was within my lifetime. Since then we have seen tremendous activity and vast changes in the world and Wales is now very much poorer than 40 years ago.
In examining the problem of Wales we must look not only at the remote rural areas but at the entire population which is less than it was 30 or 40 years ago. This is the responsibility which falls upon the Government of doing something, anything, which will succeed in injecting new vigour and new life into the depressed areas. It is not a disease and Wales is not an incurable patient but one which is temporarily sick and can be stimulated into the fullest activity. We have to take care of the weakest link in the structure of Wales, so the Council of Wales have appropriately confined their attention to the rural area. There are sad spots to be seen in rural Wales at the present time. So much do we regret them that we call attention to them as soon as possible. No one in rural England would imagine

that everything in the garden there is lovely. That is a part of the problem in which we have to find the highest level, in endeavouring to equalise the opportunities of life in rural areas with those of urban areas. With proper plans Wales can recover the sound vigour, health and energy, to which she is entitled.
The White Paper calls attention in the first instance to the very serious fact of rural depopulation. Young people go away. I do not care where we turn our eyes. If we were to take away young people from the City of London or from any of our prosperous cities there would be hardly anything left. That is the problem in Wales. It is an ordinary problem of ordinary weakness and lack of confidence that comes of being old, and from the loss of young people. The average age in Wales is far too high and the conditions in which people live are far too low.
The average age of the houses is probably 80 or 90 years. Many of them are 200 years old. The figures are given of amenities. For example, 40 per cent. of the houses in rural areas are without a piped water supply. For Pembrokeshire and Cardiganshire, the figure is 73 per cent. That is the state of things in the noble Lady's division. It is not her fault. It is a condition that we have all inherited, with our pride of race and of association. Some rural districts were worse. In 1944 the figure was 93 per cent. in Anglesey.
Here is a matter which is worth studying by the Ministers responsible, and not merely by the Minister of Agriculture but by all responsible Ministers who are involved in this matter. From 1911 to 1948 migration from the rural areas was in full swing, even before the main industrial invasion. From 1911 to 1948 the population in Group I, which is on page 56 of the Report, fell by 29.35 per cent. in Merioneth and Denbigh, for example.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Ministers responsible. Surely they are the Ministers of the past who did not attend to this problem.

Mr. Grenfell: Well, they are all dead now. In Cardigan, the figure was 15.43 per cent., Montgomery 90 per cent., Pembrokeshire 73 per cent. What sort of prosperity can we expect from Wales if not only the population has declined, but


their finance also. There is no efficiency possible in organisation without manpower. We cannot have an army, we cannot have any industry, unless there is sufficient manpower. There is not sufficient manpower on the land in our counties now. There are no people there to build new houses or to develop work of any kind. The craftsmen are the first to leave our industries. Long ago the blacksmith, the carpenter and the mason have gone away from the villages to the towns where there is life and possibly a chance of earning a living, where also there is rational entertainment. We have not planned this. It does not happen by wishing or by passing unanimous resolutions in this House but only by planning new life in Wales. That is my wish.
I want an entirely new constitution and the renewal of earlier possibilities. I want opportunities given to that little country, which has produced men and women who have excelled in the world. We must keep up our standards and do better. We cannot restore health without the transfusion of new blood into Wales. Financial provision must be made for Wales, and organisation must be brought into use, and when we have the goodwill and the support of Governmental authorities we must have a Welsh Development Commission in Wales, consisting in the main of Welsh people on the spot doing the job which is necessary to save that small country. I recommend to the House and to the Government the setting up of a Wales Development Commission, with not less than £200 million at its disposal for a start to commence the planning and the carrying out of the plan. Do not let us be stingy, for nothing will be done on those terms.
I am very glad today to be able to take part in this debate with fellow countrymen of mine of whom I am very proud and whom I love very much, and whom I should like to serve more efficiently than I have been able at any time in the past. I want the House to listen to us, take our point of view and share our confidence, and support by tangible means the reconstruction and rehabilitation of that small country.

5.22 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): I trust that the House, particularly hon. Members who sit for con-

stituencies in the Principality, will not take it amiss if I intervene at this stage— I shall be as brief as those who have preceded me—merely to deal in the main with the first part of the Council's Report. I agreed very much with the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) that in this Report we have a good deal, if not all, of the evidence we need, that it shows a disquieting situation in many ways, and that it should be a challenge to everybody who has executive powers in this matter.
From the point of view of Departmental interest, for which I am now speaking, we accept that is.so, and I want to direct attention to the sort of things that we are doing and the effect that we think they are having. I should first like to associate myself with the congratulations which have been offered to the Chairman of the National Council for Wales, whom I should like to mention personally. Not only is he a friend of mine of many years standing, but he is one from whom I have received as much instruction in this field, and in others, as I have had from anybody. I should also like to congratulate the Council upon the excellence of their Report.
Several hon. Members have asked what we are now going to do about the major field that it covers. The Government will be discussing with the Council in the very-near future the question of the Report. the suggestions that it makes and the next steps that are to be taken. The first part of the Report is on the work of the Panel on Marginal Land. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) said, this is very largely the problem of the de-population of the rural areas in Wales. In the last three years I have seen for myself the rural areas in almost every county in Wales and on almost every type of land. It is very largely a question of poverty.
The noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) made it quite clear that she did not expect me, as I am not a Welshman, to follow her into the realms of what Welshmen can do and Englishmen cannot do, and I shall not attempt to do that; but, whatever the position about that may be, the fact remains that in the end it is the concrete things that are done, as much as the good-sounding nationalist sentiments that are uttered, which will conquer the problem of poverty. The attack of my


right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has been directed to finding ways and means of getting concrete things done to raise the level of farming, increase the prosperity of the rural areas and improve the standard of equipment, and it is about that that I want to talk.
It is inevitable that a Report such as this should draw particular attention to the problems so that the general picture emerges as a somewhat gloomy one, because these problems are news in that sense. I ought perhaps to begin by saying that in many ways the position of Welsh agriculture today, and therefore of the rural areas, is a much more buoyant and hopeful one than it has often been in the past. Like the western half of England, Wales has just emerged from perhaps the worst harvest, in the sense of the difficulties of getting it in, for a very long time. It has been extremely difficult to get the crops in and to get enough feed to hold the livestock population at a good figure.
Nevertheless, it ought to be put on record in a debate like this that Welsh agriculture has now a cattle population almost as high as it has ever been. We had something like one million at the end of June. Because of the difficulties of getting in the harvest and of getting enough feed to see the livestock through the winter, there was a not unnatural hesitancy to carry additional stock and there was a very slight drop in the December figures. Farmers fattened their animals and slaughtered them for meat rather than risk carrying them through what might have been a difficult winter, but, even so, the figures were some 934,000 at the end of December. Sheep are a matter of great importance for large parts of rural Wales and for much of the land about which we have been talking, and the sheep stocks at the end of December were 2,871,000, which means that they were almost back to the record winter figures of just before the great disaster of 1947. This represents an enormous effort by Welsh sheep farmers.
The December figure for pigs was 145,000. Pig stocks have shown a steady rise. This is most important, because it shows considerable faith in the future. Most of us would agree that in relation to the rural areas of Wales the important thing is to stimulate faith in the future.

That will have as much to do with maintaining the population as anything else. The figure for breeding pigs rose by 37 per cent. over the previous return. That represents a considerable investment for the future. Poultry stocks at over four million are still expanding and we have passed the previous record figures.
As to crops, we have had a very depressing winter and the wet weather has now continued well beyond the middle of March, and, therefore, the wheat acreage sown is bound to be considerably below what we should have liked. It will obviously be very difficult in that part of the United Kingdom to make a sufficiently large spring sowing to compensate for this. All that one can hope is that we shall compensate to some extent for the loss of wheat, owing to the weather and the difficulty of the season, by an increase in the coarse grain crops which will help those areas, as well as the rest of the country, very much with their livestock feeding problem.
I was glad to see that the Council called attention, on page 15 of the Report, to the conservation of the grass produced in Wales. To some parts of the Kingdom the excessive rainfall has been something which has occurred in the early months of 1951 and will not occur again, but excessive rainfall is a problem which is always likely to be with Wales because of its geography. We cannot combat the rain, but it is most important to take steps to combat the effects of the rain by having much better arrangements to use the grass, which is a by-product of the rain.
The silage production to which the Report refers is estimated for this year at 100,000 tons compared with only 20,000 tons in 1948–49. That by itself will mean a great increase in the head of livestock that can be carried because of the greater feed value in it. There were 60 grass drying plants in operation in Wales last year, and I hope that the combination of the faith in the future which the Welsh farmer clearly has, and the impressive desire of the National Agricultural Advisory Service to improve the agriculture of Wales, will lead to an even greater increase both in the productivity and the use that is made of the grassland.
Having said, as a background, that there is a buoyant and improving rural


industry, I turn now to the marginal land problem with which the Report is to a large extent concerned. I agree that marginal land provides a considerable social problem, quite apart from anything we can do agriculturally. It involves, inevitably, the continuance of many really uneconomic units in term of size as part of a social policy. If people live there it means that the cost of carrying social services to them becomes much too high to be done easily. That is an aspect which the Report brings out and with which we agree.
What the Government can and must do falls under two heads: first, the Government must provide financial help which will improve the land itself, in so far as that is practicable; second, the Government must provide financial help which will give better living conditions for the farmer and his staff, and for the livestock they have to look after in those areas. Those are the two things with which my right hon. Friend's Department has mostly to concern itself.
The first class of scheme, for dealing with the improvement of the land, we try to carry out under the Marginal Production Scheme, which helps occupiers to deal with parts of their farms and lift them out of a marginal category. It mainly affects those who farm on the lowlands. The other class of scheme comes under the Hill Farming Act—the Livestock Rearing Act as it will be— whereby owners and occupiers can enter into partnership with State assistance to rehabilitate the whole of their farms. That will affect mainly the upland areas.
Under the Marginal Production Scheme we are able to make, and have been making, grants in respect of programmes of work which would be uneconomic if undertaken without assistance from the Government in this way——

ROYAL ASSENT

5.33 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1951.
2. Export Guarantees Act, 1951.
3. Livestock Rearing Act, 1951.
4. Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 1951.
5. Overseas Resources Development Act, 1951.
6. Alkali, &amp;c, Works Regulation (Scotland) Act, 1951.
7. Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Act, 1951.
8. Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Act, 1951.

And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

Diocesan Education Committees Measure, 1943 (Amendment) Measure, 1951.

COUNCIL FOR WALES

Question again proposed,
That this House takes note of the Memorandum on the activities of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire, Command Paper 8060.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. G. Brown: I was about to give to the House some figures about the grants we have made under the Marginal Production Scheme since it began on 1st April, 1949, until as near as possible to the present day. Up to 28th February this year, we had authorised 6,102 grants amounting to £297,729, which represents nearly £600,000 worth of work of improvement to marginal land in Wales. From the beginning of the current financial year, as the House will know, the amount we are able to spend under the scheme has been doubled and we have extended the field that can be covered in the way of improvement work to the land in Wales, so that it covers improvement to old ridge and furrow grassland, land covered by light scrub, anthills, rushes and bracken, and infested land of that kind.
In the 10 months of this financial year we have already allocated nearly £130,000 in grants, covering some 2,000 holdings in Wales. Remembering the shocking weather we have had since August that means that despite the difficulties a tremendous amount of work is going on under this scheme to improve the marginal land, about which we are all concerned. So far this year we have actually paid out to farmers, as distinct from merely approved, £65,000 under this head.
The second kind of scheme is the rehabilitation of farms, particularly in the upland areas. The vehicle under which we have done that is the Hill Farming Act, 1946. So far, 27 per cent. of the eligible farms in Wales have put in schemes under the Hill Farming Act and in Merioneth—it may be that they are nearer their canny Celtic brothers further north—the figure is 47 per cent. of the eligible farms.
The number of live proposals in Wales at the end of January was 2,198, which related to 2,550 holdings and covered a total acreage of no less than 620,000. They represent work on those holdings of a total cost of very nearly £2,500,000. The rate of grant to be paid on these schemes being 50 per cent. It must be conceded that by that means alone a tremendous contribution to the marginal land problem is already clearly in hand.
I thought the House might be interested to have the break-down of these global figures into some of the more important headings under which the grant is being given. There are 19 different forms of improvement that can be grant aided. I will not give all the details, but I will give the more significant. Farm buildings account for £431,000; farm houses being improved and repaired £310,000; farm cottages £41,000; roads and bridges—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor referred—£115,000. This, of course, has nothing to do with what is done under the Ministry of Transport and by other arrangements for roads. Water supply schemes amounted to £109,000 and electricity schemes—which have nothing to do with the major schemes which the electricity boards may have on hand—£71,000. Sheep dipping accommodation, which is of enormous importance if we are to rehabilitate these flocks, accounted for £40,000.
Each visit I make to Wales brings home again to me how vitally important and how terribly neglected for the last 50 years or so has been the, question of fencing and how large a factor that has been in reducing the rural areas. It accounted for £305,000; for drainage there was £75,000; shelter belts, £31,000 and liming—and we all know how tremendously important that is—£152,000; manuring and re-seeding amounted to £456,000 and the removal of bracken and burning of heather, £23,000.
There are other headings, but the figures I have given will be enough to show the kind of vital scheme which has received considerable grant aid from public money. To that extent we are already biting deeply into this real core of the marginal land problem. Some 50 per cent. of the total amount is for the improvement of living conditions of the farmer, his staff and his livestock. That is most important in the light of what the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey and others have said about the need for improving the living accommodation of those who live in the country. As far as we can do it through our Departmental interests we have directed what attention and public money we could to this particular heading. Of the 2,198 live schemes, 380 are under consideration, 1,236 awaiting final approval and 531 already approved.
The disappointing thing is that when one inquires what has been paid out one gets a figure of £39,300 to the end of February, but it is cheering to note that in the last two or three months, this year, the accounts on which we pay grants have begun to come in very much quicker. I will explain the mechanics of this and how far they are controlled by the vigour with which the farmer himself moves. January was a record month for paying out since the beginning of the scheme. We paid more than £8,200 in that month and we paid £14,500 in January and February this year, so that we now are beginning to get the schemes which have been considered since 1946 coming to fruition and no one is more glad than my right hon. Friend that we are beginning to pay.
The question of delay has often been raised and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor frequently refers to it. Perhaps I may explain how it


works. The important thing to remember is that no scheme needs to be held up while approval is being given. Our land commissioners in Wales can give the authority to start even in advance of the preparation of the scheme actually being completed. He can say, "You can go ahead with the work so long as you come forward with a scheme which we are able to approve at a later date and the grant will be paid even though the work was started before the whole scheme was approved." In that way we have been able to secure that the work goes on even before the drawing of plans, and so on. Well over half the schemes have had approval to proceed on that basis, so that the work is not held up.
One of our problems is that farmers themselves are apt to take a considerable time before carrying out the work. Those who have influence in the rural areas of Wales should put considerable pressure, if pressure is the right word, on the farmers in those areas, not only to take advantage of the Act to bring forward schemes, but to get them pushed ahead with all the vigour they can command.
I wish to say something which arises out of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) and the speech of the noble Lady and of the Council's Report. I do not think there is any doubt that the shortage of builders and craftsmen for work in the remoter areas is a considerable handicap to all one would like to do to re-populate those areas. We are looking into the matter and we hope that the sort of demand for building work we are making effective by these grants will be an attraction to plasterers and workers of that kind to come back to these areas.
The natural development of the Hill Farming Act is the Livestock Rearing Act, to which we have just heard the Royal Assent given. Here we have the obvious and logical outcome of the Council's recommendations, as given in paragraph 65. One of the interesting and pleasing things about this is that the Livestock Rearing Act so completely carried out the recommendations and suggestions the Council for Wales makes. Hon. Members have said that we have the Council, the evidence and the recommendation and that now we want action.
That is a very noble and understandable sentiment, but nobody has pointed

out that we could not have had action any quicker than we have had it under the Livestock Rearing Act with regard to the proposals made by the Council to deal with the problem of marginal land. The Panel on marginal land made their forecast and to a large extent influenced the provisions of the Livestock Rearing Act, and action has followed. Royal Assent has been given within six months of the Council's Report being available to the House. I should have thought that that would have been regarded as evidence of the Government's intention to take very seriously suggestions made by the Council.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraphs 57 and 62 of the Council's Report where, in consultation with the county committees, the Council say that as many as 415,000 acres of marginal land are improvable at a reasonable cost—I think £20 to £30 an acre—with a maintenance payment afterwards of about £2 an acre? Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Livestock Rearing Act will tackle that vast problem in the rural areas?

Mr. Brown: I think the Livestock Rearing Act will enable us to tackle as much of the problem as the total amount of money available will stand. Obviously, with all the other expenditure going on, there must at the moment be a limit to the amount of money which the taxpayer can make available for this purpose. But we have £22 million here and this is the sort of land we shall be able to cover. Of course, it will not cover all the land in Wales, any more than it will cover all the land in the marginal areas of England, but it will go a very considerable way.
The details of the Act are very much as the Council recommended in paragraphs 69, 70 and 71. I will not read them to the House, for hon. Members can look them up, and probably have already done so. There is some £40 million to be invested in the rehabilitation of this stock-rearing land in the upland areas of the United Kingdom over the next five years. There will be a maximum grant aid of £22 million of which Wales will have its fair share. That cannot be enough to deal with all the land, but we assume that it will deal


with about one-third of all the land in this category, which will be a very considerable amount.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor asked about the special area which the Council mention in paragraph 75 and about the particular work we might do there. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the Minister has taken note of the Council's recommendation on this point and is now considering whether, as they request, he should ask the Welsh Land Sub-Commission to investigate the matter and advise in any special action which we can take. In due course he will consider the advice of the Sub-Commission, which is exactly what we have been asked to do by the National Council, so that once again the noble Lady will see that action is following very quickly on a specific recommendation.
It is, of course, much easier for action to follow a specific proposal than it is for action to follow a general condemnation or a general blanket criticism, and I think that wherever we have had specific proposals we have dealt with them. If I might digress for a moment, I should like to deal with a point made by the noble Lady who spoke about the problem of slaughtering animals. I can assure her that we shall consider the specific recommendations she made in the general consideration the Government are giving to a national policy on slaughtering and on meat. I will see that the question of slaughtering and Birkenhead, which she asked, will be borne in mind in the general examination.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor asked me to make sure that the widest publicity was given to the possibilities created by the Livestock Rearing Act and I can assure him that that will be done. We shall look into the proposals which he made and shall see that a descriptive bulletin is issued in Welsh and in English, and that broadcasts in Welsh as well as in English are made regularly so that people can take as much advantage of the schemes as possible.
I turn now to the question of water supplies, and particularly farm schemes, although I should like to say a few words about rural water supplies generally. Up to 28th February of this year, 8,288

applications for grant aid, involving a total expenditure of £1,377,000 had been submitted for farm water supply schemes and grants amounting to £528,000 had been approved in respect of 7,371 of the schemes. Hon. Members may like to know that Cardiganshire, with 1,334 applications, was the first Welsh county to pass the 1,000 mark and that Carmarthenshire, with 1,235 applications, has the next highest number.
In addition to these farm schemes, which are of enormous importance in re-populating the stock areas of Wales, there have been some 163 public schemes under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act of 1944, at a total estimated cost of £6 million. These 163 rural water schemes have now been approved and a grant has been promised on them of £2¾ million. Thus, nearly £3 million worth of grant has already been promised on these rural water schemes.
In order to bring the matter into focus, particularly for those who have been criticising the progress, may I point out that this £6 million should be seen against a total of £3½ million spent in the 20 years between the two wars. If one makes all the proper allowances for the increase in costs, this still represents a very considerable rate of increase over the provision of public water supply schemes in the past.
I have shown what a tremendous amount is already being done to tackle this problem of marginal land. That serves as a practical and positive example of the way in which things are being done. There are many other forms of assistance which can be given but, in order to save time, I will not go into them in detail. It may interest the House to have one other figure. I have already mentioned some ways we have been grant-aiding this important work, but I think it is worth noting that, in addition to the guaranteed prices which the Welsh farmer shares with all the other farmers in the United Kingdom—and that is of enormous importance—in the last financial year something like £4 million was made available to Welsh farmers in the way of direct grants under the sort of schemes about which I have been talking. That money went straight away—which is the important thing—into projects of a long-term or short-term value in the lowlands and uplands of Wales.
I have two other points to mention before I sit down. I should not want any Welshman to say that a non-Welshman had taken up too much time in the debate, but if that criticism were made my reply would be that I have taken a very great interest in these problems and that I have been into Wales very nearly as often as many hon. Members who, like myself, are tied here and limited to week-end visits. First of all, may I mention the T.B. eradication scheme? The great thing is that in Wales we have the first of the areas for complete clearance of T.B. from among our cattle. Pembroke, Cardigan, Camarthen and part of Glamorgan have become the first free testing area. Already, 2,700 owners have applied for free testing since we announced the scheme. This represents about one herd in every three of those not attested. The next area we hope to be free in Wales will be Brecon, Radnor, Merioneth and Montgomery. Although there is considerable progress in attestation in that area, something very much better can be done whereby the farmers there will receive the bonus which is available to the owners of beef herds and we shall be able to proceed towards the declaration of a second area.
The Council's Report also deals with farm institutes, and in paragraph 58 the Council very rightly stress that even when we have improved this marginal land the management of it will call for very much higher skill. We have that, plus the change in the traditional system in farming in Wales, and once again we have tried to do our best, as we have tried to do in similar provisions for the higher training of farmers in Wales. We had made plans for expanding farm institutes very considerably. We have approved tenders for a new institute at Celyn, Flintshire, specialising in horticulture, and at Golden Grove, Carmarthenshire, to serve the South West and to accommodate 50 students. We have approved in principle a new institute for 50 students at Glynllifon to serve North-West Wales and a new institute at Llangoed to serve mid-Wales, and we hope that as a result of these proposals to have by 1952 provision for 340 students as against 200 at present. Three hundred of these places should be for Welsh students if they will come forward in sufficient numbers.
I hope I have given the House information and evidence to show that where

specific proposals have been made, action has followed; that we have, so far as it lies in our power, tried to deal with the concrete cases of depopulation, the rural problems of marginal land and poverty. With the permission of the House, my right hon. Friend will speak at the end of the debate and deal with other suggestions which impinge upon the Panel on depopulation. I have confined myself to the Panel on marginal land. Hon. Members who are Welsh, or who come from Welsh constituencies, will I hope share my enthusiasm and faith that a very great deal is being done to cure the problem of marginal land in Wales.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: No one can say that the Parliamentary Secretary has not given us figures. He has given us a great deal of information, some of it, I think, new; and we shall study it in greater detail when it is on paper. One slight complaint which I think might have been voiced by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) who I see is leaving the Chamber—I was putting words into the mouth of the hon. Lady, and saying that this was a criticism which she might have made—was that the Parliamentary Secretary was necessarily rather one-eyed, and was looking at the matter only from the point of view of his Department. In talking about the necessity for roads and electricity he said, "We are doing this"—but this has nothing to do with what the Ministry of Fuel and Power and the Ministry of Transport are doing. It has, of course——

Mr. Brown: No. I said that what we were doing was in addition to what they are doing.

Mr. Birch: Exactly. The hon. Gentleman used the words, "That has nothing to do with what they have done "meaning that it is in addition. I agree. But the point is it has something to do with it, because this is one country, and what anybody does on roads and electricity is relevant; and that is why I complain about his one-eyed approach.
Some hard things were said about the Advisory Council when it was first set up, particularly by my hon. Friends below the Gangway. We, on the other hand, always said that it could do valuable work and I believe that it is doing valuable


work. I would join with hon. Members in all parts of the House in saying that I was much impressed by the first Report. I thought it was extremely intelligent; I thought they were thinking about real problems; that they had given those problems some deep thought and that there was some sense of purpose in what they wrote. That makes it a very different document from the Welsh White Paper which, as hon. Members know, is composed as a result of quarterly meetings of civil servants in Cardiff, without any Ministerial direction; and is necessarily therefore only a list of statistics without any real discussion of the problems which have to be solved and with no purpose behind it.
Having congratulated the Council, I hope they will not become empire-builders on the staff side. There is a rather sinister paragraph which refers to the need of a "complete and independent-secretariat." I believe they should rely on the help they get from the Ministries. If they can now produce a good report like this one, I do not think they want a separate secretariat, though they should have the power to call on civil servants for what they want, and power in the Principality equal to that of a Select Committee of this House, that is, the power to send for persons and papers, which I do not think they have at the moment.
I will turn to the question of rural de-population. I was very glad that in their Report the Panel did not come to a final judgment. They did recognise how difficult and how complex is this problem of rural de-population; much more difficult in Wales than elsewhere because one-quarter of our land is over 1,000 ft. and one-third of it between 500 ft. and 1,000 ft. As the noble Lady the hon. Member for Anglesey pointed out, in similar land, both in England and in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, precisely the same problem of rural depopulation has arisen. The difficulty, as the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) pointed out, is that this depopulation is still going on in spite of the fact that farmers in these areas are very much better off than they were before.
It seems to me the truth is that under modern conditions there has been a big break with past traditions. However

many amenities we produce—and I am all in favour of producing them—however much we spend on marginal land—and I should have liked to see some of the £36 million which was wasted somewhere else spent on marginal land in Wales—we shall be up against this problem. Under modern conditions, people want an easier life. Women do not like the lonely life in mountain farms. People feel that if they go elsewhere they will have a much fuller life—and who shall blame them? The point I am making is that I am not absolutely certain that it is only a matter of money. I am glad to see that the Panel are to consider this much more deeply, because they may, if they think long enough, get a bigger answer than just money. I do not think money is really the final and absolute answer.
There are three specific recommendations of the Panel upon which I should like to comment. The first, which was touched on by the Parliamentary Secretary, is that the Panel regretted that farmers on poorer land had gone over to milk production. The Panel regretted that. Of course, that is a result of Government policy, and the pull of the monthly milk cheque is obviously immensely powerful. The Panel went on to say that it might be questioned whether milk production was the best form of agricultural production for such areas. I am sure they are right, and that what we want to get back to is what they used to have before, namely, store cattle and sheep.
The Parliamentary Secretary gave some figures about sheep and one of them was, very misleading. I think he will agree, if he reads what he says, that he gave the impression that the sheep population was now higher than it had ever been, or was within striking distance of being higher than it has ever been. If we look at the White Paper, we see the figure for sheep and lambs in 1950 was 3,800,000; whereas in 1939 it was 4,600,000. So we have some way to go to get back to the sheep population which existed before the war.
Meat is very scarce at the moment and wool is very dear. We pray that fantastic prices for wool will not go on. But what is certain is that we can do with all the meat and wool we can get from Wales-for as long ahead as anyone can see. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, we hope


that the Livestock Rearing Act will have some effect, but I should like the Minister, if he can, to give some forecast of how quickly it is going to work. I see the pull of the monthly cheque being very powerful. It seems to take a long time to get these schemes into operation. It did with the Hill Farming Act. I am sure the Livestock Act is on the right lines. It is on meat and wool production that we should concentrate.
The second point on which I am sure they are right is that of minor roads. We ought to concentrate now on the minor roads and to leave such questions as the north and south road to a time when our resources are not so stretched as they are today. The third thing they said—and we have always agreed—is that the closing down of so many of our village schools is wrong. That is happening in my constituency now. We get the children herded into enormous schools to which they travel in buses. It takes the children away from the rural atmosphere.
One last comment on land is that there are other ways of getting people off the land besides poverty, and one is by taking up the land and massacring it by opencast coal operations. In Flintshire we have just had official notification that the Ministry of Fuel and Power are now to descend upon the very best land we have and start several schemes of opencast coal mining. And on top of that they are going to put down a disposal point, presumably with concrete hardstanding, on good agricultural land. As we know, we are short of coal, but I cannot really believe that it can be right in present circumstances to ruin first-class agricultural land in the very best part of Flintshire. Frankly, I cannot believe that it is necessary. That is one of the best ways of destroying agriculture and of getting people off the land. People say, "It is not good enough. We will go off and we will not come back. We will take jobs as lorry drivers or something of that sort."
I had wanted to comment upon the speech by the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey about devolution. As we have not much time available, I shall confine myself to a few short remarks. Where I think that she is not doing a good service is in the imprecision of her words and the imprecision of the resolutions which are passed at home rule confer-

ences. The noble Lady mentioned a number of very respectable gentlemen on the other side of the House—the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies), the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) and others—who were with her on the platform at Cardiff. She did not mention Mr. Idris Cox, the Leader of the Communist Party, or the Welsh Nationalists.
It is worth remembering that they were all there. I cannot believe that they can all have meant the same thing. I have much too great an admiration for the noble Lady to think that she thinks the same as Mr. Cox, or many other people who have been with her on the platform. The trouble with these resolutions is that they are so vague that they might mean anything. A whole lot of people sign them who, if they got together and debated the problem, would find they were in total disagreement about what ought to happen. When the noble Lady talks about devolution and combines that with home rule for Wales, it seems to me that she really is confusing the issue. By definition, devolution means power devolved from a Government. It does not mean complete home rule.
It seems to me that there are three things which can be done in Wales. We can have complete home rule; we can have a subordinate Parliament; or we can have a much greater devolution of authority—that is to say, we can so contrive things that the weight of Whitehall lies less heavily upon us. We Conservatives want to see the third course, with the weight of Whitehall less heavily upon us and Welsh interests more strongly represented at the centre of power by a Minister. We believe that that is right. What I think is wrong is that these conferences should pass resolutions so vague that people who believe in home rule, people who believe in a subordinate Parliament and people who believe in more devolution, all sign on the dotted line when in fact they want quite different things. The issue should be put clearly to the people of Wales to decide which of these three courses they prefer.

6.25 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I welcome this Report of the Council for Wales because I believe that it provides us with an agenda for discussion on which we can all agree even if we do not all


go to Llandrindod. I do not mind whether we go to Llandrindod, Caernarvon, Aberystwyth or Cardiff. I do not want to pre-judge the issue as to which shall be the capital of Wales. I welcome the fact that we can have in this Report a meeting place of ideas. That is extremely important. I agree with previous speakers that the sting of this Report is in the tail; in other words, in the final paragraph. We hope very much that the Minister who is to reply to this debate will have something to say about that final paragraph, paragraph 180 on page 48. We believe that the Council has started to do very good work; that it has shown the way to do even better work; but that it cannot do its best work unless it has further powers and, at any rate, some further staff.
I would ask a question of the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and some of my hon. Friends who are trying to by-pass the Council for Wales. Whatever they may say in this House, by their actions in Wales they are in fact trying to by-pass this Council. They are trying to undermine the confidence of Wales in the work which the Council can do. I ask them seriously to consider whether it is not really a necessary step for progress that this Council should be enabled to do effective work. I have to cut short my remarks, because of the time, but I would remind them that they are talking very imprecisely, as the hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), remarked. It is very seldom that East and West Flint agree, but I entirely agree on this occasion. They are talking very imprecisely of home rule for Wales.
They know perfectly well that. if a referendum were taken in Wales today, there would be an overwhelming majority against such a fundamental political change. The majority in the heavily-populated industrial areas of South Wales, and in the partly-industrialised area which I represent, want no such thing. I cannot help feeling that it is to some extent dishonest or, at any rate, unclear thinking, to ignore, or to pretend to ignore, this factor. Unless the rural areas are to be cut off from industrial Wales, which would leave them much more high and dry financially than they are even now,

a much more cautious approach is necessary.
The Americans fought a civil war to prevent the secession of the Southern States. We do not want a secession of the rural areas of Wales, but there is a serious danger that there would be a split in Wales if hon. Members took in practice the steps which they very freely advocate upon public platforms. I believe that dogma divides but work unites. It is much more fruitful for those of us in Wales to study the tasks which are at hand, to which attention has been given in the document which we are discussing this afternoon. To give just one example, there is the use of land. There is no question which has aroused more feeling in the Principality in the last few years than this question of land use. Land is required for forestry, for the Services, for housing and industry and indeed for opencast coal mining, which is a sore point at present in Flintshire and, no doubt, elsewhere.
Each of these claims is examined separately, in isolation, on its own merits. It is not examined against any background of agreed policy of land use for the Principality. If it is argued that the same is true of England, I suggest that this is a problem which would benefit in its handling by decentralisation and that Wales is a suitable unit for the purpose. I also believe that it is true to say that Wales is more emphatically land-conscious than England. I have been brought up with a foot in both countries and I believe this is so. It seems to me that, on this subject of land use, there is a possible line of advance for the Council for Wales and that it might be given greater powers in this matter. I suggest that that is something which should be seriously considered both by the Council itself and by the Government.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: Lady Megan Lloyd George rose——

Mrs. White: I am sorry that I cannot give way to the noble Lady, but I promised to finish by 6.30 p.m.
I understand that the Council is to meet members of the Government shortly to discuss various problems, including decentralisation, and I am quite sure we shall reach better conclusions if we assist its progress than by making propaganda speeches here and elsewhere.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When I re-read the Report on the depopulation of rural Wales, which forms one of the bases of this short debate, I was most struck by a sentence in paragraph 92:
It is important to emphasise that the gravity of this situation for Wales and her future lies in the fact that the migrants are mainly young workers and the future mothers. This process deprives the nation not only of the migrants themselves, but of their potential offspring.
In that quotation, I think, there is the key to the whole problem of rural depopulation in Wales. Mere reduction in crude population in an agricultural area is not in itself necessarily an evil. Indeed, it may be a concomitant of a rising standard of living. But the loss of families at the rate at which this loss has been going on, and still is going on, in rural Wales is serious, and may possibly become a fatal thing.
I am sure that I shall have the agreement of the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George)— and I think that no hon. Member from industrial Wales will challenge it—that the essence of Wales is the white cottage or farm half-way up the hillside, with the unfenced upland above it, usually bracken-covered, and below it the chequered pattern of fields stretching down to a stream. That is rural Wales, and only as long as there are families to succeed one another in those farms and cottages of rural Wales will Wales, as we know it and wish it to continue, survive. That survival can only come about if there is vitality in three things; vitality in the home, vitality in the farm, which provides the home with its work; and vitality in the village, which is the community to which the farm belongs. I want to make a few remarks about each of these three elements which are essential to the survival of rural Wales—the home, the farm—particularly the family farm—and the village.
A home is practically synonymous with a house; and I think almost every hon. Member who has spoken in this debate has referred to housing conditions in rural Wales. Perhaps, however, this particular point has not been made. We have today the absurd situation that houses are being built for rural workers, into which rural workers will not go. In

local authority areas throughout Wales, houses which have been built for agricultural workers with the agricultural subsidy cannot be let to agricultural workers.
A number of figures are given in paragraph 120 of the Report concerning agricultural rent. The rent of a rural worker's council house is given at about 12s. inclusive. These figures are already out of date for many parts of Wales. Fifteen shillings and more, exclusive, is having to be charged in rent by local authorities, and the consequence is that houses are being built for agricultural workers for which tenants cannot be found. There are many examples of this, but I merely take one or two, which happen to be from the constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins). As he probably knows, there are houses which have been built in his division at Felindre and Llanbistr for agricultural workers, but for which agricultural tenants cannot be found. Even at 10s. a week, houses in some parts of Wales cannot be let to agricultural workers. So we have the absurdity that council houses for farm workers are built but not let, while the agricultural workers remain in their 80 or 100-year old houses.
There is a solution to this, and it lies in a change of heart in Government policy. The resources are there. There are building firms in the small towns and even in the villages of Wales who could be building houses but are not doing so at present. They are engaged on jobbing work, because they are not able to tender to the local authorities, whereas the landowners or farmers who wish to build houses are not able to get the licences to erect them.
I am going to make three suggestions on housing. The first is that the Housing Act, 1949, should be administered with more generosity, at any rate, in Wales. In the administration of that Act at present much too sharp a distinction is being drawn between repairing or reconditioning on the one hand and improvement on the other, and schemes which include an element of both, as indeed they must and should do, are being rejected and torn up on the ground that the Act covers only actual additional improvements. I feel sure that, within the terms of the Act much greater generosity could be shown.
Secondly, we ought to get away from the ratio conception in the local authority


areas of Wales. Where a house can be built, it ought to be built, no matter by whom or for whom it is built, and irrespective of the number which the local authority wishes to erect. There are quite special conditions in Wales which affect the number of houses which the local authorities can build. Finally, whoever builds the houses, there must be some revision of standards. I do not mean the health standards, but the standard and amount of accommodation in a house as a whole——

Mr. William Elwyn Jones: Surely, the hon. Member must be aware that there are certain rural areas where there are private licences which have not been taken up?

Mr. George Thomas: Nor by local authorities.

Mr. Powell: I am well aware that there are areas where the local authority has not built up to the maximum, but my argument is that, wherever a house can be built and a person wants to have a house built, it ought to be built. The whole system should be cut loose from ratio. I repeat, if we can have more flexibility on standards to meet the needs of the agricultural worker and also a new conception regarding the ratio, we shall get away from the dilemma between the houses in which he cannot afford to live and the hovels which he wishes to leave.
Next, there is the question of other amenities. In my view, the key is electricity. If we have electricity, we can deal with the other deficiencies, even water, because a water scheme for a farm can be operated on the basis of electric power. But the electricity must be there first. It is undeniable that Wales has not had her fair share of electrification since the war.

Mr. G. Thomas: Or before.

Mr. Powell: It will be within the knowledge of hon. Members that there were in Wales many electricity companies which sprang up in the 'thirties and which year by year were pushing up the valleys from the centres in which they were located. They had their plans and were ready to go ahead with development after the war, but because of nationalisation nothing happened, precisely because the whole problem was looked at nationally.

If a single example is wanted, I would quote that of the Machynlleth Electricity Company, which was a live company, and which by this time, but for nationalisation, would have pushed up several more of the valleys which lead down to the Dovey. That is evidence that through treating this thing on a Great Britain basis, the needs of the small rural areas, which would otherwise have been met, have been neglected.
I will now pass from the home to the farm, which in the typical parts of Wales is mostly a family farm, because the family farm does not face the difficulties of labour shortage which afflict the larger farm or estate, and also because, under modern taxation conditions, it is much easier for the small family farmer to raise his share of the capital necessary for improvements. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture referred to the number of schemes which have been "put in" on the hill farming and marginal land schemes. That phrase misses the point altogether. The question is the speed at which the schemes are being carried out, and unless the Livestock Rearing Bill is implemented at a much faster rate than the Hill Farming Act—which took five years before anything started to come through the pipeline—it will be a grave disappointment indeed.
I make one practical suggestion. Why does not the Minister devolve authority for approving schemes, at least below a certain level, to the county agricultural executive committees? After all, they are his agents in the countryside; so why not use them in this way? If he did, he would get much prompter consideration and approval of such schemes and quicker action.
I wish now to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), with regard to the uneconomic pressures to which Welsh agriculture is being subjected. Where such pressure is leading to the uneconomic production of milk, it is not only distorting the present pattern of Welsh agriculture, but distorting it for the future, because, where dairying is started up, expensive plant is put in and alterations are made, and it is then all the more difficult to revert.
There is another point in the same direction. Let us take the wheat and


potato acreage targets. These are another distorting factor, all the more so because they are reckoned in terms of acres. There is no merit in simply having a larger acreage under wheat and potatoes. The important point is whether more wheat or potatoes are produced from that acreage. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to look at these target acreages with regard to their application to the rural parts of Wales.
One final point on the distortion of the pattern of Welsh agriculture. If the producer were given something nearer to world prices for his output—of course. I am thinking at the moment more particularly of wool—he could dispense with a good deal of assistance in the form of subsidies. If we bring Welsh agriculture and the return it receives nearer to economic realities, we shall be doing a service to Wales.
A good many hon. Members have referred to the problem of Welsh rural roads; but I am not sure that anyone has put his finger on the point of greatest difficulty. Reference has been made to unclassified roads, but it is not the unclassified road for which the county council accepts authority which is the trouble. It is the unscheduled road, the nobody's child, which serves, perhaps, four or five farms, a road, as it were, left without a mother by the break-up of some estate, perhaps 50 or 100 years ago, which has never been taken over by a local authority, and yet which is not the responsibility of the owners of the individual farms. Incidentally, I imagine that such owners cannot propose improvement schemes in respect of roads which are not on their land.
These lengths of road are really a very serious hindrance to Welsh agriculture. Now that loads are taken to and from farms in six-ton lorries, lime and fertilisers coming in and produce going out, it means being cut off from the world if a farm happens to be at the end of one of these portions of unscheduled road. I will give the House an example of the scale of this problem. Out of the 1,000 roads in Radnorshire, half are unclassified, and half, again, of the latter are unscheduled. The matter is all the more difficult because the county councils have themselves a struggle to cope with the unclassified roads. After all, expenditure on unclassified roads is almost the only

type of local authority expenditure uncontrolled by the central Government. In other words, it is the element on which pressure to economise falls first of all. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to look again at the re-classification and rescheduling of the roads in Wales. No doubt that would mean a change of the law, but it is necessary to bring these roads—these motherless babies—within the scope of the county councils and the attention of the Ministry of Transport.
I have referred to the larger farms, as distinct from the family farms, and to some of their difficulties. Those difficulties can and would partly be met by a greater development in Wales of private forestry. Indeed, the integration of forestry with other types of agriculture is perhaps the direction in which prosperity lies for rural Wales. Particularly would that integration enable labour to be kept steadily employed throughout the year, such labour being local labour, and not, like the labour of the Forestry Commission, gang labour.
I must say a word or two about the Forestry Commission. The two words "Forestry Commission" are probably the most hated and reviled in the whole of Wales. Not even the War Office can compete with the profound and cordial detestation in which the Forestry Commission is held throughout Wales.

Mr. Cove: Rubbish.

Mr. Powell: If hon. Members will listen, they will hear the reason why the Forestry Commission is so detested. If they do not believe me, they can go into rural Wales and find out for themselves.

Mr. Cove: You are an Englishman.

Mr. Powell: I am sorry to delay the reply of the Minister, but I am obliged, by the interventions of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), to observe that this is a United Kingdom Parliament, and that it will be an ill day for Wales when only those who happen to represent Welsh constituencies love and speak for her.
By afforesting the lower slopes of the Welsh hills, the Forestry Commission have cut off the sheep farmers from the summer pastures, the upland pastures, which lie above the afforested belt. They have denied those flocks their natural shelter, and have often thus devastated by


means of afforestation much larger areas than they have covered with trees. Had they made a plan to integrate afforestation with agriculture, then afforestation would have been a blessing instead of a scourge to sheep farming in Wales. But, as it is, the Forestry Commission have driven straight ahead, without taking any notice of Welsh opinion or of local conditions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] If hon. Members doubt that, they should inquire whether the Towy scheme was ever considered by the local planning authorities, when they would find that the answer is "No."

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way for a moment?

Mr. Powell: To enable the Minister to have time to reply, I will not refer to the third element which I mentioned as being essential—the survival of the vitality of the village—except to say that the disappearance of the village school and the village schoolmaster as a natural leader of the rural community is a dangerous trend which must be reversed.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: There is just one point which I want to take from the speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and that is in relation to electricity supplies. There is a great difference between conditions in North Wales and those in South Wales. It is possible for a farmer in any part of North Wales to connect with the main for a sum of £12 but in Carmarthen £200 is demanded from a man 300 yards or so from the main. That is an unwarranted difference. Another difference between North and South Wales is that South Wales Electricity Board is the only board in the country which has not on it a representative of agriculture. Why is that exception made and why is it not redressed?
Both the hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), and the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), said that Wales talked in imprecise terms about her political outlook. That is true and the reason for that is to be found in the Motion on the Order Paper today. The Motion is to receive a Report. It

expresses no opinion at all on the part of the Government on that Report. I have protested before in the House about dealing with this Council directly or reviewing the Council's Report in a direct form. This is not a Chamber for the purpose of reviewing books. This is a Chamber to debate the proposals of the Government and there is no proposal before the House except that we receive the Report.
It is no part of my argument to criticise the members of this Council in any shape or form. But the position with regard to Wales has so changed in the last five years that this is an important matter. I am not going to criticise nationalisation tonight, but the nationalisation Measures have altered the position of Wales far more than they have altered that of any other part of the country. Our main industries, coal, iron and steel and transport are all nationalised, and gas, electricity and agriculture are rigidly State-controlled.
Wales is the only part of this country of which it can be said that all its activities are almost rigidly State-controlled. What follows from that? It is with difficulty that one can put questions across the Floor of the House relating to nationalised industries and it is with difficulty that one can debate a nationalised industry, irrespective of merit. So Wales is excluded, in the ordinary way, from discussing her industries and her every-day affairs on the Floor of the House to a greater degree than any other part of this country.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: But she has full employment.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that she should be satisfied with the loss of political discussion and political representation in return for full employment? He is treating a very serious issue in a scoffing way.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I had no intention of scoffing. I was merely pointing out that in spite of that, there was full employment.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I am discussing a political problem and the political situation in this country. Another problem of importance to the political life of the country follows from it. Today, we are moving away from the right to appear in


the courts and the right to have our legitimate claims discussed in and decided by the courts. In the last five years, for instance, over a large field the right has been denied to a body of people to appeal to the courts from the decision of a tribunal.
Reference has been made to the Forestry Commission. I do not propose to criticise the Commission at all. I am criticising the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture. He is responsible. This has happened in one Act after another and I do not blame him more than I blame the Minister for Local Government and Planning because the same causes apply throughout. The result is that a Government Department can now appear before a tribunal and demand the right to buy land compulsorily and it need not call a single witness to substantiate its claims before the tribunal. Surely that is a denial of the elementary right of the subject.
The more the industries that control the country are nationalised the more helpless the country becomes. Is it a matter of surprise that there is confusion in Wales under this system? I have been compelled to crowd what I have to say on this very real issue into five minutes. It is a serious issue that should be debated and one which the House should have time to debate, because it affects the constitution not merely of Wales but of this country. Yet no opportunity is given to discuss a major issue of this sort. Is it a wonder that national conferences are called and that there is confusion? Let the House consider who were on the platform at the meeting at Cardiff last Saturday. They were some of the most eminent men in Wales. There is confusion among those eminent people and the blame for that confusion arises because of what has happened in the last five years.

6.57 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): The noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) wanted to know why the Minister of Agriculture was likely to reply to this debate. The answer was very simple. I understood that Welsh Members desired to raise almost wholly and exclusively the question of agriculture. If the Welsh Parliamentary Party had indicated that they wanted to discuss

a wide range of subjects, social and otherwise, in Wales, then quite clearly they might have had whatever Minister they wanted to reply to the debate.

Mr. Cove: Neither Liberals nor Tories were at that meeting.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: That is absolutely wrong.

Mr. T. Williams: I do not want to enter into debate. I merely reply to the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey by telling her that it was our understanding that this debate, following the general debate early last year, was to be devoted almost exclusively to agriculture. That is the reason why my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary tried to indicate—I think successfully—how far the Government had gone to give effect to the recommendations made by the Council. I make no apology, therefore, for following him for only a few minutes in this debate, which I regard as of some importance.
I do not agree with the noble Lady when she said that all we had for Wales was lots of sympathy and a plentiful supply of good will. My hon. Friend indicated that we not only have good will for Wales but many millions of pounds which we place at her disposal for rehabilitation. The noble Lady said that we were interested in self-government for Ceylon, Pakistan and India but we were not enthusiastic about self-government for Wales. Perhaps she has forgotten that there are more than 100 Welsh men and women who are Members of this House and they wield a very powerful influence on how this Government or any other Government spend their money and to what they should devote their time. The Minister of Local Government and Planning, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Labour and National Service, the Secretary of State for the Colonies and I do not know how many more Ministers are Welshmen, and they are responsible for a good deal of administration.
The noble Lady mentioned rural housing. I should like to bring to the notice of the House what has happened during the past five years in rural Wales. Local authorities have completed no fewer than 9,202 houses since 1st April, 1945, to September, 1950. Unfortunately, only 997 of them have been let to agricultural workers, which represents only 10.8 per cent. compared with 23 per cent. of rural


houses which went to agricultural workers in England. I would also remind the noble Lady that from 1945 to September, 1950, there were over 11,000 houses erected by rural district councils and by private enterprise—that is to say, 11,000 in just short of five years. But from 1919 until the end of the last war, only 45,000 houses were built. So that house building has been speedier in the last' five years, in spite of what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, than ever it was when the Conservative Party were in office between the wars.
Reference was also made to the labour question. Although there has been a loss of labour, which we profoundly regret, not only from the countryside but also from the urban areas in Wales over a long period of time, the Council tell us the reason on page 25 of their Report, where they say:
Periods of depression in agriculture coupled with low wages have caused the rural workers for several decades to seek employment elsewhere …
They go on to say:
… it is disturbing to find that in the present period of comparative prosperity in agricultural and industrial areas"—
prosperity due to the actions of this Government—
the migration still continues.
The figures are as follow. In 1939, when agriculture was still a depressed industry, there were 36,648 regular agricultural workers. In 1950, despite the loss of labour from the countryside, there were 737,692 regular agricultural workers. So that between 1939 and 1950 there has been an increase in regular and casual labour.
Reference was made to water schemes which are of incalculable social value, and I think the Government have done whatever was humanly possible to help the Welsh people to help themselves in this direction. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, made some reference to electricity, but I could not understand his figures. Actually since the war, when according to the hon. Member, activities in this direction have virtually stopped, there has been more activity than ever there was before the war. From the end of 1945 to 31st December last, 2,400 farms in Wales have

been connected with electricity, making a total of about 5,750 farms. In other words, in five years 2,400 farms have been linked up, and throughout the whole of the time preceding those five years 3,350 had been linked up. What the hon. Gentleman means by his figures I do not know. He certainly could not have strayed further from the truth.
The hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) said that the Council were doing a good job, and I entirely agree. They merit the appreciation of hon. Members in all parts of the House. Not only are they investigating problems and making recommendations, but, as far as humanly possible, this Government is carrying out those recommendations, and I hope will continue to do so. The hon. Member also asked if we could speed up schemes under the Livestock Rearing Act. I hope that as a result of our experience under the Hill Farming Act we shall be able to speed up the procedure so that we can start to improve the production of meat in this country as early as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), alluding to the Council and its powers, referred to paragraph 180 of the Report. I understand that my right hon. Friend the former Lord President of the Council had already undertaken to meet a deputation of the Council immediately after the Easter Recess. I gather that the Lord Privy Seal will undertake that obligation. We shall perhaps get a bit nearer to the Council and ascertain exactly what they want, for it is difficult for me, and it must be difficult for other hon. Members, to know exactly what paragraph 180 means.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that houses were not being built as rapidly as they ought to be in rural Wales because of lack of licences. That certainly cannot be true if my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) spoke the truth earlier this afternoon. The hon. Member called upon the Government to exercise their default powers where local authorities are not doing their duty. The former Minister of Health said on more than one occasion that all building labour in rural Wales is actually working full time and in many cases overtime. It is not a question of licences, and I hope the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West will not tell that story again.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, also wanted to know why we did not delegate executive power to county agricultural executive committees where schemes under the Hill Farming Act are concerned. Surely if the hon. Member had made any inquiries he would have known that we have actually delegated that power. It is the county agricultural executive committees who advise and guide the farmers and who try to expedite the schemes. I can assure the hon. Member that the county agricultural executive committees are as anxious as he and I that those schemes should be expedited as much as possible.
The hon. Member also referred to farmers, and I can assure him that we are as fair and sympathetic to Welsh farmers as we are to those in England or in any other part of the British Isles. He can take it from me that if we were not the Welsh farmers would very soon tell us about it. He made a suggestion about wool, and said that if we did something about wool everything would be merry and bright. The hon. Member has not been in this House long enough to know all the agricultural Measures which have been passed through this House during the last 30 or 40 years. What he wants us to do is to go back to the old days when there were instability and fluctuations and nobody knew where they were, which is the real reason for the loss of manpower in rural Wales.
I have detained the House a few minutes longer than I intended, but I must reply to the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris). He referred to the Towy Valley scheme —[An HON. MEMBER: "It was the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West."] In that case, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, is more guilty than I thought. If he cares to look at page 44, paragraph 166, he will find that afforestation has not been to the detriment of Wales. These figures are given in the Report, which he must have read: Taking seven different areas and starting with 1926, the number of persons employed by the Forestry Commission on the first date was 130, and on the second date, which is not many years later, it had increased to 378. So the Forestry Commission have actually been taking spending power to Wales, which is what Wales requires more than all else

if Welsh rural areas are to be rehabilitated.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: The right hon. Gentleman has indicated that I referred to the Towy Valley. I did not refer to the Towy Valley Scheme, but there arises on that matter the important question of a public inquiry. Will the right hon. Gentleman order that officials of his Ministry shall give evidence before it?

Mr. Williams: Certainly not, since that is utterly contrary to all tradition, in accordance with which inspectors conduct inquiries to ascertain what are the local objections. The hon. Member knows that, compared with one inquiry instituted by the Forestry Commission, the Minister of Health formerly had, or the Minister of Local Government and Planning will now have, to order one, two or even three such inquiries. No one knows better than the hon. and learned Gentleman that those inquiries are the occasion for the inspector to listen to local objections, and that the inspector reports to the appropriate Department, which has to take the ultimate decision.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: That is not what I am asking. The right hon. Gentleman has power to order his officials to appear. Does he really think that it is any sort of justice that half the evidence should not be presented before an inquiry that is said to be public?

Mr. Williams: Again, the hon. and learned Member knows as well as I do that Parliament is the ultimate defence for the objectors; that it must be and has been so, long before I came to this House. Until the general law relating to inquiries is amended, I am not prepared to send witnesses either to Carmarthen or indeed anywhere else.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: On a point of order. I understand that the House is now about to proceed to other business. An important Motion is before the House, namely, that it takes note of the Memorandum of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire. As a great number of Members representing Welsh constituencies have not had the opportunity of speaking, would you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, accept a Motion "That the debate be now adjourned," in order to enable the House to consider the matter again before taking note of the Memorandum?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I have some difficulty about accepting that Motion. I agree, however, that there has not been the length of time available that might normally have been the case. In those circumstances, I will accept the Motion.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I beg to move, "That the debate be now adjourned."

Mr. Donnelly: I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne concerning the conduct of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks in handing over to the Bishop of Rochester a letter he had received from his constituent the Rev. O. Fielding Clarke, M.A., B.D., be remitted to the Committee of Privileges.
I desire, at the outset of this debate, to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this Motion does not invite the House to express any concluded or final opinion upon this matter one way or the other. It does not invite the House to pass any adverse or favourable comment upon the action which is the subject matter of the complaint. It does not invite the House to express a concluded opinion that a breach of Privilege has occurred. It does not invite the House even to say that questions of Privilege are involved.
It invites the House to do what it has become almost the invariable custom of the House to do whenever any question is raised which involves, or might involve, or which is claimed to involve, a breach of Privilege. I can conceive of nothing more derogatory to the prestige and authority of the House of Commons than for the House of Commons to decline to take any notice at all of a matter which is claimed to be a breach of Privilege. And where that matter arouses so much interest in the House itself and so much interest outside the House, in the country, the House would, I submit. be bringing itself into contempt if it did nothing whatever about it and refused to investigate it at all.
If there were one thing which would bring the House into even greater contempt than to decline to take cognisance of complaints of this kind it would be if they were to be decided one way or the other according to the numbers belonging to the different parties in the House. Nothing could be worse than to treat such a matter as one of party conflict or party war. I hope to say nothing, in asking the House to accept this Motion, which anyone could fairly or reasonably think to be dictated or influenced in any way by party feeling one way or the other.
I should like to make one other preliminary point. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, last Thursday—I was not here, so that I can only presume that HANSARD correctly reports him—announced that his party would vote against this Motion. He indicated earlier, although I suppose that the two statements were intended to be read together, that he regarded the Motion as in some way a reflection upon Mr. Speaker in that it invited the House to deal with a question as to which Mr. Speaker ruled there was no prima facie case.
On the first of those statements, I do most sincerely and quite humbly, I hope, beg the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider what advice he will give to his supporters on this matter, and particularly on the question of fighting along party lines. No one would like to see Members on this side of the House, whenever the General Election comes, going up and down the country saying, "Please do not vote for Tory candidates because what you want is a Member of Parliament to whom you can write a letter with safety and security." It is essentially a matter for each Member of the House to consider according to his judgment and according to his own conscience, and I hope that we shall all be able, at the end of the day, to vote, if vote we must, as Members of Parliament and not as members of parties.
On the other statement, I hope it is not necessary to assure you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, or to assure the House, that no sort of reflection upon Mr. Speaker is intended or implied. It is quite true —and I see no reason why I should make further comment upon it—that I should have preferred Mr. Speaker to have ruled that there was a prima facie case; but,


Mr. Speaker himself made it perfectly clear that his Ruling was not—and I do not mean he used these words, but I think they are a fair way of putting it— in any sense a judicial Ruling which had the effect of removing the question beyond the competence of the House of Commons: it was a merely administrative Ruling which prevented the House from considering the matter then and there in priority to all other business.
The only effect of the Ruling was that the House still remained the only competent authority to decide whether there was a case or no case, and what it would do with it if there was one, only it must find some other time in which to do it. We all loyally accepted that Ruling, and that Ruling was honoured and implemented. The House did not deal with it in priority to all other business, and if we are now dealing with it, it is because other time has been found.
That is in no sort or sense, either expressly or by implication, directly or indirectly, any reflection at all upon Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who, last Thursday, said it was, has had time to reconsider it; and if he does take part in the debate I hope that he will acknowledge that the House not only had the duty but that the House must deal with a complaint that has been made to it, in spite of the fact that Mr. Speaker ruled it should not be dealt with last Tuesday.
What is the complaint? The complaint, stated quite shortly, is that a private citizen, feeling disturbed, anxious, worried about a question of public policy, wrote to his Member of Parliament about it, and that that Member of Parliament, without his authority and without his consent, sent the letter to his superior in his calling. We all receive a great many letters—some of us sometimes think that we receive too many—and we all have to deal with them, and we all know that, from time to time, we send many of the letters on to the Minister in charge of the Department which has reference to the matter about which our constituents write.
But in all these cases there is in the letter either an expressed request to do so, or there is obviously an implied authority to do so. If a constituent writes to a Member in order to get a grievance

remedied, or information supplied, or a doubt resolved, he obviously implies that the Member shall inquire of the appropriate authority; and all those letters are, obviously, correctly dealt with in that way.
But there are other letters—letters such as this. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. John Rodgers), in the personal statement which he made the other day, read out the letter which he had received, and told us—I am not using his exact words, for I do not want to delay the House with quotations, but I think that this is a fair summary of what he said to us—that he was horrified by its contents, and thought that it was written in objectionable terms and made attacks upon people—in this case attacks upon the Church—and so thought that he was entitled, without authority, to send it on. The letter was from a vicar, and he sent it on to the bishop of the diocese.
All of us heard the letter read—many of us, anyhow—and I suppose that many others of us have since read the letter in HANSARD; and indeed, it is true that it is written in most savagely ironical terms. It is obviously the letter of a deeply moved and deeply worried man. I cannot myself feel that it was written in terms too ironic, though, of course, irony tends to be misunderstood. I understand that it is a canon of modern pedagogy that one must never use irony with children; and it would appear from some of the comments made in this case that it is dangerous to use it in a letter to a politician, and even more dangerous to use it in a letter to a prelate, because it may be taken seriously and literally.
For my part, belonging, as one of my correspondents has reminded me, to a race which lost one third of its number in cold blood by deliberate massacre at the hands of the people who are now supposed, in some quarters, to be the only possible saviours of Western civilisation against those who enabled us to beat the Nazis at the time, perhaps I am less likely than others to complain of the irony of this letter.
I would say, too, that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks at no time told his constituent that he objected to the terms of the letter; at no time told him that he regarded it as an attack upon the Church; at no time told him that any


resentment at all, was aroused in his mind by the terms of the letter that he had received; but, having already sent it on, for the reasons which he has told us, to the bishop, he wrote to his constituent. "Dear Mr. Fielding Clarke, Thank you very much for your letter. The best thing I can do is to send you a copy of HANSARD. Yours sincerely." I am bound to say, speaking only for myself, that I find the irony of the vicar's letter more easy to understand than the cynicism of the hon. Member.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: He does not say "Thank you very much," but said "Thank you for your letter."

Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged for the correction. I accept it. I have not got it, but I take it that the hon. Member has. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks did not thank him very much—he only thanked him. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the date?"] It is 19th February, 1951, the original letter from the constituent having been written eight days before.
Even if the hon. Member is right in his assessment of the letter and I am wrong, if that letter is as bad a letter, if it is as dangerous a letter, if it is as mischievous a letter, and if it is as unjustified as he thinks, and I dare say many others may think, I would say to the House that such a letter as he thinks it was deserves even more confidential treatment than a good letter would need. What we have to preserve is the feeling of security in the minds of our constituents; that they can write anything that is in their minds to their Member of Parliament without feeling that the letter will be handed over to the boss, or handed over to the landlord, or handed over to the priest.
Let us imagine the case of a man who believes he has discovered some peculation or grave impropriety in the operation of a nationalised industry in his neighbourhood. He may not have access to definite information. He may not feel that he ought to take upon himself the responsibility of a personal investigation. He may not feel that he is entitled to make a public statement about matters which he may only suspect, but he may, nevertheless, feel that here is a matter which ought to be inquired into and turns, as he ought to feel he has the right

to turn, to his Member of Parliament who himself is covered by an absolute privilege and therefore can see to it that proper investigation is made, knowing that if there is not something in it, no harm will be done, whereas if there is something in it, he has started an investigation and done his duty as a citizen.
But if that man comes to feel that not merely may his Member of Parliament betray him to the man he is accusing, or to the organisation he is impeaching; if he comes to feel that the House of Commons will not protect him in the confidential relationship we have encouraged everyone to believe holds between the constituent and the Member of Parliament, what man would dare to write such a letter to a Member of Parliament again? I think it is clear—and I invite the House to think that it is clear, whether Privilege is involved in this matter or not— that that is in the highest degree undesirable; that the prestige and authority of the House of Commons as a representative democratic institution must rest very largely upon the trust which constituents feel in the Member of Parliament they have themselves elected and that if we do that, it is at any rate a wholly undesirable thing to do. Is there anyone in the House who would defend it?

Mr. Blackburn: As one who sympathises a great deal with the hon. Member's argument and agrees with it, may I ask him at least in fairness to say that whatever the merits of this proposition may be, it is a moral proposition for which, as far as I am aware, there are no precedents?

Mr. Silverman: I think the hon. Member is perfectly right in this sense. I do not think that the general principle I have enunciated is a novel proposition. I think everyone has accepted that and everyone recognises that it is one of the foundations upon which Parliamentary representative democracy rests, and must rest. But I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there has never been any precedent for a complaint of this kind. That is one of my reasons for saying that not merely is the House right to follow its normal practice of referring matters complained of in this way for report in the first place by the Committee of Privileges, but especially where we have a case for which there is no precedent, that becomes an


a fortiori argument for saying that the matter ought to be investigated by the Committee of Privileges.
It seems to me that the state of the House now and the state of the Order Paper shows that this is a matter which is greatly exercising the minds of right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen on both sides. There is a clash of opinion, there is a difference of emphasis, a difference of degree, there is a feeling that perhaps there may be something wrong here, but no one knows exactly what. There is a feeling that there is some kind of principle involved, but nobody is quite sure how that principle ought to be formulated.
Nobody has any feeling, as far as I can judge, that this is a matter which is of no importance and which the House of Commons can afford to neglect, or can afford to disregard. In those circumstances, it seems to me that, without the House committing itself to any concluded or decided view, the case for asking the Committee of Privileges to investigate the thing, to consider it, to agree upon a report, if it can, and to present that report for the consideration of the House, is an overwhelming case which the House would ignore—I say it with all due respect—at its peril.
I do not want to be too long, but the other night we had some discussion about preserving the prestige and dignity of the House of Commons. This is the "Mother of Parliaments." Here it was that the idea of the government of nations by a democratic representative system was born. That system of Parliamentary democracy is under heavy attack all over the world. We are concerned to protect it and to defend it for ourselves, and to uphold it as an example to all others as and when they see the merit of it and equip themselves to apply it and to work it.
I do not complain about the give and take of party warfare in the House of Commons. I think it is very easy to take too tragic a view about Oppositions wanting to turn out Governments or Governments wishing to retain their place. I think it is possible to be exaggeratedly or cynically indignant about using the rules and procedure of the House for the Government or against the Government.
The more vigorous the controversy is in this House the better for Parliament,

not the worse. By all means let us have it and stand for our view; and let us use the machinery of our Parliament to make our views prevail against one another. That is what Parliament is for. But we should have lost irretrievably the battle for Parliamentary democracy if we consented for one moment to any kind of action which undermined the confidence of the represented in those who represent them, and in the institutions by which that representation is manifested.
I, for my part, can see no greater danger to the Parliamentary institution, and no easier method of bringing it into contempt, than to allow people in the country to become convinced, synically, that there is nothing in it after all—nothing in it but place and power; nothing in it but the fight between this gang and that gang, this party or that party. If we were to lose their faith in the practice of the system, it would be in vain that we should defend Parliamentary democracy here, or uphold it elsewhere in the world.
I ask the House of Commons not to decide anything now, but not to ignore anything now; not to by-pass it; not to say that this is a mere conflict between party and party; not to rally as a party behind the particular Member because he happens to be "one of us," but instead to refer this matter, as normally we would have done, as normally we have been in the habit of doing for so long a period, without partisanship and without party warfare, judicially to our Committee of senior Members that they may consider it and come back with a report.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: I beg to second the Motion.
I should like first to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that, in my opinion, he has presented his case in a very quiet and convincing way. If I may say so without being impudent, the House is obviously in a very good mood to consider the issues involved in this matter. In rising to second this Motion, perhaps I might say, in the first place, how much I agree with my hon. Friend in his first two submissions. There is no reflection at all, I think, upon Mr. Speaker, he having found that there was not a prima facie case to be referred to the Committee of Privileges. I think there can be no doubt about that.
I agree with my hon. Friend also in regard to the attitude which was taken by the Leader of the Opposition last Thursday, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter. After all, this is, or may be, a matter of Privilege, and it has been found throughout the centuries that the House of Commons, even in considering election petitions at the Bar of the House, was a most unsatisfactory, unwieldy, and also non-judicial body to deal with these things. I, therefore, say that, although it is grand to see men springing to the assistance of other men—if you like, more so if they are in your party than not—although we may on these occasions admire the party esprit de corps of the party opposite in rallying to the support and assistance of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. John Rodgers), I still think that the House would be letting itself in for a very great deal of criticism if tonight we were foolish enough not to accede without a Division to my hon. Friend's Motion.
I should also like to put this to the House. The House of Commons is much bigger than the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), either political party, or all the Members of Parliament sitting here at this present moment. The pride of this House and its dignity must go on, and I feel that to run away from the position which the House of Commons adopted 48 years ago, would be a very great pity. I have been looking into the precedents, and I find that in 1902 Mr. Balfour moved a Motion dealing with new Rules of Procedure, and perhaps I might, with the permission of the House, quote one or two sentences from his speech on 30th January, 1902. That was before I was born, and the right hon. Member for Woodford, who 'was in the House at that time, is now the only representative here, of that Parliament. Mr. Balfour said:
Then there is one other proposal of a miscellaneous class, and that relates to questions of privilege. Everybody who has sat through the last two or three Parliaments must have had brought home to them the extreme inconvenience of a question of privilege being suddenly, without notice, started on the House immediately after Questions, and a very important decision being taken by the House without any power of looking into precedents and of considering in cold blood the circumstances of the case. The result of that has

been, not only, as I think, a considerable waste of public time, but also some decisions of which this House has, in my opinion, no very great reason to be proud. Now we appoint a Committee on Privileges at the beginning of every Session; it is the very first thing we do; we do it before the King's Speech has begun; but we never name, it never goes further, it is a purely formal proceeding which, I think, happens at the same time as that hardy annual of my right hon. Friend connected with the interference of Peers at elections. We think that Committee ought to be appointed; and we propose that, whenever any question of privilege not relating to a controversy between the two Houses—which are questions of a rather different character—is raised, it should on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown be referred, without further debate, to this Committee for report. I cannot help thinking that that would add much to the dignity of the House when placed in the very difficult circumstances in which we occasionally find ourselves.
The great opponent of that was a famous namesake of mine, Mr. Gibson Bowles, whom the right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, remember. He disagreed with Mr. Balfour, who was First Lord of the Treasury at that time, which is no doubt the explanation. He said:
I will come to the question of Privilege. I do not know what sort of view the First Lord takes of privilege. I think it is one of the things that bore him. Probably it bores him more than anything else. No doubt it is troublesome. When privilege is raised as it is raised now, suddenly, it does demand a certain knowledge of the rules and traditions of this House, and it also demands a certain readiness of mind and the capacity to decide at a moment in an emergency. If you have not these qualities, of course, it bores you. But the question of privilege is most important. The battle of the Constitution was largely fought by privilege. A breach of privilege is a contempt of Parliament of a very serious nature, not only because of the subject and character of it, but also because of the danger involved in it. It has always been held to be essential that a breach of privilege should be dealt with at once.
It is not difficult to find exactly who voted on that occasion. There was, of course, Mr. Balfour. [Interruption.]The question was, "That the procedure be adopted as outlined in the Motion." There was also the right hon. Gentleman Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. [Interruption.]I am making an appeal to the Conservative Party not to oppose this Motion. There was Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Mr. Winston Spencer Churchill, all of whom voted for it, and the late Speaker of the House of Commons voted for it. [Interruption.]Surely hon. Members can contain themselves. I did say that this was really a non-political vote.

Mr. Churchill: Was the Motion moved by Mr. Balfour adopted by the House?

Mr. Bowles: Yes.

Mr. Churchill: Would the hon. Gentleman who has been giving these researches into the past let us know what were the reasons that made it necessary to introduce the issue of the Speaker having to give a Ruling on whether there was a prima facie case or not? There must have been some reason.

Mr. Bowles: That came later. As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne pointed out, the position was that any matter of Privilege had to be raised immediately after Questions, and then it may have happened, or it obviously could have happened that one, two, five or ten hon. Members could come along and obstruct all the Government's business that day. Therefore, I think the House then said to Mr. Speaker: "We give you the right to decide whether there is a prima facie case to go to the Committee of Privileges or a case of Privilege"; otherwise the Government's business might not be reached. The Speaker therefore was and is a safeguard against an abuse of the Privilege procedure. The priority given to alleged questions of Privilege which came immediately after Questions could be taken away, because of the Speaker's Ruling; then the Motion had to take its place when it could find time.
It is very important to remember what did happen. During the last 48 years this Committee of Privileges has been set up. The right hon. Gentleman has himself in the past made generous reference to its eminence, its importance and so on. I make this appeal—that however much hon. Members opposite may disagree with what the Government have been doing during the last five or six years, however much they may have disliked Parliament for increasing taxation and taking away some of their economic power and so on, I do not think that that has influenced them in any way to lose the great respect which they should have for this House.
Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I do so having regard to the great respect in which he is held on all sides of the House as one of the great Parliamentarians, and because of his influence in this House, apart from the noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton)—and the fact

that if we have a new Parliament we shall have a new Father of the House—and because the right hon. Gentleman is so much older than anyone else. [Laughter.]He is older than I am in years, so I must feel that he is rather old. May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman'. to withdraw the remark he made the other day and let us, as sensible Parliamentarians, have this matter referred to the Committee of Privileges. No one will lose any face whatever, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman when he speaks will undertake to let us decide in the sensible calm judicial atmosphere in which this debate has so far been carried: on.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. John Rodgers: I have already made a statement setting forth1 the facts under discussion. There is-nothing that I desire to add to that statement, except to correct one misapprehension. My reply to the Vicar of Crockham Hill was only despatched after I had received a carbon copy of the letter already sent by the bishop to the vicar, which started by saying that I had referred the vicar's letter to him. I do not propose to take any part in this debate whatever, nor do I propose to exercise my vote should this Motion be pressed to a Division. In order that the House may freely discuss the matter, I propose to withdraw.

The hon. Member then withdrew.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: No one can complain of any violence in the temper or tone of the speeches in which this Motion has been introduced to the House. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), who seconded it, referred to my great and unique age in this House, and that was also a subject of interest on the Ministerial Front Bench a little while ago. I remember well that my father—if we are to go back into the past—called' Mr. Gladstone "An old man in a hurry." That was in the year 1885, and 16 years-later Mr. Gladstone was engaged in forming another Administration. I do-not, however, want to suggest that such a precedent will be repeated, in order not to dishearten hon. Members opposite.
I have listened to a great deal that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said, with a great deal of sympathy for his general principles,


but I am bound to say that I do not think that he dealt with the actual issue which is before us. There is this question that Mr. Speaker, on 13th March, ruled that there was no prima facie case to refer to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. S. Silverman: He did not say that.

Mr. Churchill: He said that there was not a prima facie case. [Interruption.]I cannot be interrupted. The House has a perfect right to reverse Mr. Speaker's Ruling, but the step is a serious one, and I do not remember it happening in my time—an immense period, far longer even than that of the Father of the House. It is quite open to a Member to put down a Motion on the Order Paper such as we have tonight, but I contend that it could not be carried without implying stultification of Mr. Speaker's Ruling. I do not mean it is any censure on Mr. Speaker, but it implies a different view taken by the House from the view taken by Mr. Speaker in the very brief time accorded to him when a Motion of this kind is made. My submission to the House is that Mr. Speaker's Ruling was right. There was no prima facie case then, there is not now a prima facie case; still less is there a case, not prima facie but, as it were, to a certain extent, pre-judged by the decision of the House.
Let us look into this question of Privilege. Privilege means Parliamentary Privilege. It is a privilege which protects Parliament, its Members, its officers, its witnesses, counsel, people who appear before it or its Committees, and also petitioners. It is a Parliamentary Privilege protecting this House and those who take part in it. It does not protect or refer to the electors or the general public. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne may shake his head. He had better be careful not to shake it too much. That is a fact. Privilege is not instituted to protect the universal suffrage electorate. They can protect themselves if they get a chance. It is to protect the House and Members of Parliament.
The electorate and the general public have their rights under the ordinary law, and they have their votes—quite an important thing. The Motion by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is based upon the assumption that the House should use its Privilege to protect a corre-

spondent, who wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. John Rodgers), from some real or supposed injury. I say that Privilege was never instituted- or intended for such a purpose. It is to protect us and those who have to deal with us, and not to protect the vast mass of the nation outside.
The correspondence of a Member with his constituents or other persons is regulated by the existing law of libel, blackmail and that sort of thing. That is the law. The correspondence of a Member is also governed by good taste, good faith, and respect for private and confidential matters. If these aspects come before the public or the electors in any constituency it is for them to judge, and unless the conduct of some Member of the House, in the course of his Parliamentary duties, or the conduct of the Chair, or other matters directly connected with Parliamentary proceedings, are involved, no question of Privilege arises. It is no good not liking it, because I am quite certain that it is a solid, established fact, upon which this matter rests and stands.
It is true that the Court of Criminal Appeal, in the case of Rex v. Rule, in 1937, held that a Member of Parliament—I use this case because it is a good illustration of how the matter stands— to whom a written communication was addressed by one of his constituents, asking for his assistance in bringing to the notice of the appropriate Minister a complaint of improper conduct on the part of some public official acting in that constituency in relation to his office, had sufficient interest in the subject matter of the complaint to render the occasion of such a publication a privileged occasion. But, here, the word "Privilege" refers to privilege under the common law. It has nothing whatever to do with Parliamentary Privilege, which is the only thing with which we are concerned on this Motion. How could the Court of Criminal Appeal pronounce on a question of Parliamentary Privilege?
There is, therefore, I submit, no case, prima facie or otherwise, on this issue that is before us. It is ordinary privilege and does not come under Parliamentary Privilege at all. Nor is any ruling by any court relevant in the slightest degree to our affairs.

Mr. S. Silverman: I quite appreciate the point the right hon. Gentleman is


making, but does he remember that in the last Parliament the House of Commons, with his consent, treated as cases of Privilege those of Mr. Garry Allighan and Mr. Evelyn Walkden where the only breach of Privilege alleged was that they communicated, without authority, to a third party, information which had come to them only because they were Members of Parliament?

Mr. Churchill: I cannot pretend to argue the merits and details of this extremely complicated case, but what I do stand on is that Parliamentary Privilege is to protect Parliament and its Members and not to protect the general public.
For 250 years the House has conformed to the Resolution, passed in 1704, that it would not extend its privileges. It is very remarkable how strong and rigidly that principle has been carried out. There is, however, a wide right of interpretation. Now we are asked by the hon. Gentleman, not in one case only but in another case which he raised, and we may be asked in many others, greatly to widen the interpretation of Privilege and to bring the ordinary correspondence of any Member of Parliament within the ambit of Privilege. I am sure that that would be a grave and most unwise departure from our proceedings. It would appear to entitle constituents to write libellous statements to their Member, and plead immunity on the grounds that their communication was privileged in the Parliamentary sense, which overrode the ordinary sense of the common law.
Apart from this it would involve Parliament in almost endless embarrassment and work, and the raising of so-called "Privilege cases" arising out of a Member's correspondence might become a fertile cause of obstruction, and would certainly cast an undue burden not only upon the Chair but upon the Table. I cannot conceive anything that would be more inconvenient or more unworkable in practice than the fact that any issue, of anybody, at any time in this House arising from the ordinary correspondence which we have to discharge in such great volume, might be raised as a matter of Privilege, and then referred to the Committee of Privileges to decide or examine in the utmost detail. We would ruin a valuable and vitally important protection, on which the dignity, power and

freedom of the House rests if we cast upon it these cataracts of irrelevant and absurd issues.
No difficulty about the correspondence of Members has been experienced in our present practice in the 50 years that I can recall. The right of a Member at his discretion to send a letter or show a letter from a constituent to any other person cannot be a matter of Privilege. If it were, we would be imposing a special and invidious responsibility and disability upon them not open to others. I must be careful how I deal with this matter. At any moment my conduct might be called in question, and I might be called before the Committee of Privileges. Someone might write a most improper or demanding letter. Is that to be within the Privilege of Parliament? If it is, it is putting a curb and a burden upon Members.
If the House accepts the view that Mr. Speaker's Ruling was correct and that there was no prima facie case, the question of the injury, if any, to the Vicar of Crockham Hill does not arise. It has gone. It was no breach of Privilege and there is no prima facie case. We are not concerned with the matter, no Parliamentary Privilege being involved. The bishop is not involved, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, who has left the Chamber, is not involved. I would not, in ordinary circumstances, have attempted—because I do not wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily— to discuss the local and special aspects of this case, but the circumstances are somewhat peculiar. I dwell in the diocese of the Bishop of Rochester, I am a parishioner of the Vicar of Crockham Hill and I am a constituent of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. Therefore, it makes for me what is called, in racing parlance, a triple event.
Naturally, I know something about the local position. I should be very sorry if it were to be thought that, with all his extravagances and improprieties, as I hold them, the Vicar of Crockham Hill does not try to do his work and to make a contribution. I agree with what has been said about the dangers of irony and sarcasm, but I am certain that there are many phrases in the letter which, taken from their context, would be very injurious but which, read in the general scope of the letter, merely indicate an extravagant mood and a desire to use


words and language to carry beyond the power of words and language. This led him into saying things which were very painful and which, for people less instructed than we are in this House, including the hon. Member who moved the Motion, might very well darken their counsel and cause them pain and distress.
I turn to the hon Member for Seven-oaks. I take a special interest, as his constituent, in how he conducts his correspondence. I may say that the idea that all constituents, that is to say universal suffrage constituents, should be protected from any consequences that might conceivably arise out of any letter that they write to their Members is, on any interpretation of the Privilege rule in respect of correspondence, an absurd idea. If everything that was written down were to impose a great question of Parliamentary Privilege upon us, it is quite possible that a call upon the telephone or a personal interview might result in all kinds of things. After all, we know the kind of world in which we are living, and it is very dangerous to put undue pressure upon normal actions because we might easily create abuses that otherwise would not have occurred.
One thing is important—I am not admitting the relevance of this point to the main argument—and it is that Members of Parliament should be careful, in dealing with a letter from a constituent, not to get that constituent into trouble which might cost him his livelihood, unless criminal or libellous considerations are involved. What did my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks do? He wrote to the bishop, and he sent this extraordinary document, which, evidently, was not written to be published. It has seen the light of day far beyond the hopes of its author. What did my hon. Friend do? He wrote to the bishop.
The Church of England differs from most of the important religious institutions in having no power to discipline its priests or ministers in their opinions and doctrines. Jews, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, all have the power, exerted by the authority of the religious community or toy the congregation, to discipline or change their ministers, but the Church of England has not that power. A bishop is without power to remove from his living a clergy-

man of whose views or doctrines he disapproves. The highest authority in the Church has no power. That is why persons like the Dean of Canterbury can do a great deal of harm with impunity. I am not at all inflicting any sort of stigma upon the Vicar of Crockham Hill by comparing him in the slightest degree with the Dean of Canterbury.
Neither have the parishioners the right or power to relieve themselves of a priest whose character, opinions or doctrines they resent. I am not sure that it might not in the long run turn out that freedom in a healthy community will be found to be the best solution of all difficulties; but still, there is no comparison. The only way in which parishioners can express their feelings is by not attending the religious services in the church of the priest concerned. Crockham Hill church is nearly always empty. There is no doubt about that, although the vicar makes special efforts by special classes, and so forth. I am in no way impugning his character or the efforts he makes, but there is no doubt of what the action of the parishioners would be if they had the same power as is possessed by many other communities and congregations.
This bishop who was appealed to in this case has no power to do anything, except one thing. He has the right, and I think he has the duty, to wrestle spiritually with the Minister. That is the worst sanction that can be invoked in the proceedings between my hon. Friend and the bishop, who has the power to apply all the resources of reason and persuasion, moral and spiritual. Why should they not be turned on? We all have the right to wrestle spiritually with one another when the proper time comes. I may even make myself the agent, in the short time left to me, of converting the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to a proper outlook on the way of life. Nothing was done that could possibly injure this vicar in his worldly affairs, in his office, or his pitifully small stipend.
My hon. Friend was quite right to write to the bishop and send the letter to the bishop. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will tell the House why, because it is one of the things we might vote about tonight. My hon. Friend had a duty to his constituents, who are the parishioners of this priest and who suffer the inconvenience—some of them—through the lack of


religious administration and through their dislike of his opinions, of having to go to some other church which may be much further off. Perhaps that has not occurred to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. That has not troubled him.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks was only discharging his duty to his constituents in endeavouring to induce the bishop to use his moral and spiritual authority to remove the evil. How illogical and absurd it is for all the supporters of the Motion to work themselves into a state of indignation and fury at the alleged ill-usage of the Vicar of Crockham Hill as a correspondent writing to his Member when they have heard nothing about the suffering of hundreds of constituents—200 families are involved—who are deprived to a large extent of the religious comfort and services to which they are entitled.
I will not keep the House much longer. I could say a great deal, but I think I have made the point very clearly. But I will say one thing. We were all much impressed by the declaration of the Leader of the House the other day about his position as Leader of the House, his not being identified with any party, his responsibility to the House as a whole, and so forth. Now we have passed out of the realm of words into the realm of action, and I should like to know what he is going to do tonight. I think he should tell us.
We have heard that the Government are not putting their Whips on in the ordinary way in favour of the Motion. I should have thought that it was their duty to vote against the Motion, as we shall certainly do, but if they are going to leave it to their followers to vote exactly as they please, how are they going to vote themselves? Is the Leader of the House going to vote for something which he knows is incorrect in procedure, or is he going to vote against it? How is he going to deal with his colleagues on the subject? I do not want to add to the many complications that he has at the present time, but, at any rate, I think it is his duty to tell the House exactly how he proposes to vote upon this Motion.
As far as we are concerned, we shall not, in these circumstances, put on the party Whips. On the merits, in perfect freedom and after full consideration of

the arguments, some of which I have ventured to bring before the House tonight, we shall, I think, vote against the Motion on the grounds that no case of Privilege arises and also because we think that it is the duty of the Member to act for all his constituents—not only for those who write to him—and to be guided as a general rule in so doing by the greatest good of the greatest number.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I think the whole House would agree that the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was disappointing to his own supporters as well as to hon. Members on this side of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] The House will agree that many of his observations and a great many of his arguments might well have been deployed if the House were now considering a Report from the Committee of Privileges and the steps that the House should take. The right hon. Gentleman has tried to pre-judge the very issues which, if the Motion is carried, will have to be decided by the Committee of Privileges.
I will deal first with the preliminary matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman as to whether or not the Motion, if carried, will cast any reflection on Mr. Speaker or be a stultification of Mr. Speaker's Ruling. A great authority on the absolute right of the House to decide for itself all questions of Privilege is contained in a remark—for which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will have great respect—which Disraeli made as long ago as 1875, at a time before the memory of even the Leader of the Opposition. I quote it because of its great authority, and because it has never been challenged. In a debate in this House on 4th March, 1875, Mr. Disraeli said:
It is well, Mr. Speaker, that the House should remember that it is in the power of the House to decide what is Privilege; and although we do always listen with respect to any opinion which may be expressed from the Chair, still that is a function which this House never must give up.
I submit that it is no reflection whatever on the view expressed by Mr. Speaker for this House to decide, as I think it must decide, to refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges.
There is another reason. Tonight the House is in possession of a great deal more evidence on this subject than was


in the possession of Mr. Speaker when he gave his original Ruling that he could not say there was not a prima facie case and also when he decided on Tuesday of last week that in his opinion there was no prima facie case. I ask the House to mark that since Mr. Speaker gave his Ruling, we have had the advantage of a personal statement made in the House by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. John Rodgers), the most significant fact of which is the curious inconsistency between the letters written by him at the time and the personal statement now made by the hon. Member. The subject, which is of great concern, not only to hon. Members, to the Press and to the public, resolves itself into the simple question: what has been the effect on the relations between Members of Parliament and their constituents of the revelation that in this instance the Member of Parliament for Sevenoaks sent on to the bishop a letter which he had received from the Vicar of Crockham Hill, and what was the motive for sending it on?
Members of the public are in the habit of writing to Members of Parliament on all kinds of subjects, and they do so in the belief that they write in confidence, and that there is no risk of their confidence being betrayed. They believe that they can do so in complete confidence; that the letters which Members of Parliament receive from their constituents will be given the same kind of secrecy and confidence as that given to a client writing to a solicitor or a patient communicating with his doctor. A constituent writing to a Member of Parliament does not expect that the letter received by his Member will then be used to his disadvantage. If it became the custom for Members of Parliament to use letters of constituents to the disadvantage and to the disinterest of their constituents, then the whole freedom with which the public at present write to their Members of Parliament would, to the great disadvantage of this House, be destroyed and lost.
It is for that reason that if this matter became general, if the House ignored what happened in this instance, Members of this House, and this House itself, would be obstructed in the discharge of their duties; and anything which tends to obstruct Members of this House in the

discharge of their Parliamentary duties is a proper subject for investigation by the Committee of Privileges. Therefore, if this episode passes unchallenged and unnoticed by the Committee of Privileges, it will destroy the existing state of affairs in which Members of this House are able to discharge their Parliamentary duties. I suggest that this is the reason why people are disturbed, the reason which has led to the tabling of this Motion.
The other aspect to which I invite the attention of hon. Members who disagree with what I have so far said is this. If there is doubt as to the extent of this matter of privilege, and whether some limitation should be imposed on the principle enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson, and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), that is a proper subject for inquiry by the Committee of Privileges. The other day, we sent to the Committee of Privileges the case on the B.B.C., which is under discussion. The Leader of the House pointed out that one of the advantages of the House not debating these matters at length but referring them to the Committee of Privileges is that the House and the public then have the advantage of obtaining a quiet, judicial, authoritative pronouncement upon any new matters of principle. In the same way I venture to say that it is just because there is no specific precedent for this case that it is essential that the Committee of Privileges should inquire into the whole field and say what is the principle and what limitations, if any, there are on it.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there have been cases of men serving in the Forces having written to hon. Members and of that having reacted against them in some form or other? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Does the hon. Member realise that only this morning I received a letter from a man serving in the R.A.F. who said that he had sought the permission of his commanding officer before writing? There are cases where it does react against the individuals.

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate what the hon. and gallant Member has said, but that kind of argument is essentially the kind of argument which the Committee of Privileges ought to examine.
Where I think the Leader of the Opposition was inclined to mislead the House—I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has gone—was in suggesting to the House that the hon. Member for Seven-oaks could not possibly have injured his constituent by sending on this letter to the bishop. That is the reverse of the truth. It is, in the first place, obvious that the letter from the hon. Member for Sevenoaks was intended to see if anything could be done to injure the vicar. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The letter was clear. I do not wish that there should be any misunderstanding about this. The gravamen of the charge against the hon. Member is that, although in his explanation to this House he said that he sent that letter on to the bishop because there were matters of Church doctrine involved, what in reality he did, as is clear from his own letter, was to ask the Bishop of Rochester to consider what could be done.
I hope that we shall hear, in a moment—I think it is time it was read—the letter which the Bishop of Rochester wrote. It was, in fact, a letter asking the vicar to resign. That is why I say that not only was the action of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks——

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Member has referred to the letter from the Bishop of Rochester. Will he now read it?

Mr. Fletcher: This is the letter written by the Bishop of Rochester to Mr. Fielding Clarke as the result of the Bishop of Rochester having heard from the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. It is dated 19th February, and so that there shall be no doubt I will read the whole of it——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I shall allow this letter to be read but it cannot be commented on.

Mr. Fletcher: The letter is:

"MY DEAR FIELDING CLARKE,

Mr. John Rodgers, the Member of Parliament for Sevenoaks, has sent me the letter you wrote to him on the 11th of this month. I read it with dismay, and indignation. It was so incoherent and venomous that I could not but wonder whether you were not working up to another breakdown. An impending breakdown seems the only explanation that you wrote at all (as there seemed no real

reason to do so), as also for the contents of the letter which were utterly inconsistent as coming from an Englishman; a Christian; and a priest of the Church.

You conjoin anti-Communist feeling with race prejudice in a quite inexplicable way. You cannot believe that everyone who objects to the utterances of the Red Dean advocates holding negroes down in slavery; or, for that matter, that every Russian is a champion of human rights. It is understandable that, as you have married a Russian wife, therefore you as well as she are quite prepared to see Russian armies swarm over the Continent, and bring this country under Soviet dominion. You, therefore, may not wish this country to be armed against possible Soviet aggression. But you must be out of your senses to suppose that those of us in England who happen not to be Russians, or have Russian relations, do not feel very differently.

I cannot express to you the indignation and horror with which I read how you spoke of the Lists of the Fallen in our churches, linking them with the names of Hitler, Goering and Goebbels, and desiring that they should be removed by Act of Parliament. You can imagine my burning resentment, as I lost two brothers in World War I, and had two sons fighting in World War 2; and my feelings towards your sentiments and expressions must be those of every family in the country who mourn their dead.

I must ask you in all seriousness whether in writing such a letter to a Member of Parliament, which must express your mind and conviction, you ought not to resign your living. Feeling as you do, and being what you are, can you possibly serve as a priest in a Church you abominate, receiving its emoluments, and ministering to a flock who cannot possibly hope to obtain from you the guidance and comfort which they need in difficult and anxious days?

I think, my dear Fielding Clarke, that it is this tension between your personal convictions and your duty as a Church of England clergyman, which occasions the pathological aberrations of your letter. It read to me like the bursting of an abscess. You probably obtained some relief in writing it. It is, however, distressing to be the Member of Parliament at whom you squirt your poison; and it shows the poison in your system.

Believe me.

Yours sincerely.

(Signed) CHRISTOPHER ROFFEN.

In deference to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I make no comment on that letter. Having read that letter and now that the House knows what was the result to this constituent of the action of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, I suggest that, in view of the injury that was done him, it disposes of the argument of the Leader of the Opposition that there was nothing which the Bishop of Rochester could do to


injure in any way the Vicar of Crockham Hill. Having read that letter, I ask the House in all seriousness to take the view that the confidence of the public and the freedom with which they can write to their Members of Parliament will be destroyed, or at any rate very seriously injured, unless this matter is coolly and calmly examined by the Committee of Privileges.

8.40 p.m.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: I am very glad indeed to know that this matter is not to be dealt with on a party vote and that the party Whips are not to be put on. I understand that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who moved the Motion, bases his contention that this is a question of Privilege on the words in Erskine May, which say that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency directly or indirectly to produce certain results, is a breach of Privilege.

Mr. Pickthorn: The words are:
… may be treated as a contempt.

Sir H. O'Neill: That is the same thing. Any ordinary person reading those words would think that it meant something more definite than what we have before us now. For instance, if somebody were to lock an hon. Member in a room and prevent his coming to the House to vote, that would be an external act which would clearly be a breach of Privilege. But I do not see how, on these words on which the hon. Member relies, that would apply to the present case.

Mr. S. Silverman: The way in which I put it is that if the feeling of confidence and security were removed, constituents would not write to hon. Members about just those matters which it is most important for hon. Members to hear about, and that in that way we should all be impeded in the proper discharge of our functions.

Sir H. O'Neill: I agree that a state of confidence should exist between an hon. Member and his constituents; but I cannot agree that letters between constituents and their Members must, in every case,

be sacrosanct. To establish such a doctrine would be going much too far.
In my view—and in this I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill)—the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. John Rodgers) acted wrongly in sending the letter to the bishop without letting his constituent know that he intended to do so. That, it seems to me, was an error of judgment, and not in any sense a breach of Parliamentary Privilege. The Leader of the Opposition has clearly shown, from his long experience, what Parliamentary Privilege is as opposed to legal privilege. I cannot see that any breach of Parliamentary Privilege took place in this case, although, in my view, there was an error of judgment. Mr. Speaker's first Ruling in this matter was that he was doubtful about it.

Mr. S. Silverman: No.

Sir H. O'Neill: He could not say whether there was a prima facie case. He said he would not say that there was not a prima facie case. In other words, he was doubtful about it. I am sorry that he gave that Ruling, because it has been the almost invariable practice for Mr. Speaker himself to decide whether or not a case is a prima facie case to go before the Committee of Privileges. I think that Mr. Speaker ought to do that on every occasion. He ought to make up his mind on it one way or the other and, when he does so, his decision should be final, subject to the right of any hon. Member to put down a Motion disagreeing with Mr. Speaker's Ruling, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has done.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that if such a Motion is put down, as it has been put down this evening, ipso facto it must amount to a Motion of censure on Mr. Speaker. It is said by the hon. Member and others that this Motion is no reflection on the Chair. I cannot agree. Mr. Speaker ruled definitely, the last time this matter came up, that there was no prima facie case to go before the Committee of Privileges. The hon. Member's Motion will seek to upset that, and, consequently, it disagrees with Mr. Speaker's Ruling, and I do not see how we can do that without implying censure upon Mr. Speaker's Ruling. Surely an intolerable situation would arise if Mr. Speaker's Ruling on this or any other


matter could be challenged with impunity by any hon. Member without any serious results. It simply would not work, and would be bound to lead to a complete breakdown of the authority of the Chair.
There are two other points which I should like to make. In the debate the other day, Mr. Speaker was asked, I think by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, to give his reasons for his Ruling that this was not a prima facie case, and he replied that Mr. Speaker never did give his reasons. If that is the practice, I think that the sooner it is changed the better. In my view, this trouble would never have arisen if it had been possible for Mr. Speaker to decide at once whether or not there was a prima facie case and to give reasoned arguments for that decision. Reasoned arguments are given by the Speaker in other cases in which he gives Rulings on important matters, and I cannot see why he should not give reasoned arguments in a case like this.
The last point I would like to make is this. In recent days and weeks, this House has seen too many cases of Privilege brought before it. I am not referring to this one, but in two cases, one raised on each side of the House quite recently, it would have been better, in my view, if they had not been raised at all. We ought to be very careful here not to confuse Privilege with the perfectly legitimate right of our constituents or of any subject to criticise Members of Parliament or the conduct of Members of Parliament. We are here to be criticised and to be shot at, and I think there is a danger if Privilege is to be invoked in any way in an attempt to stifle that criticism.
Privilege of Parliament is a great Parliamentary conception. It has grown up through the centuries, and it should be carefully guarded and sparingly used. Let us be sure that we do not abuse it. I am glad that the party Whips are not to be put on this evening, and I hope that the result of this debate, when the vote is taken, if it is taken, will be to uphold the authority of the Chair.

8.49 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The House has had some time to consider this Motion, and I think that perhaps I can now offer a few observations, although I am going

to say straight away that Privilege is a matter for the House itself and is not. in my view, a matter on which the Government should give any advice or guidance to hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or the Opposition."] I want to emphasise again that I am not a party Leader or even the deputy leader of a party. Leaders of parties are perfectly entitled to give advice to their followers, especially when they are not embarrassed by the position of being also the head of the Government, because then it might be implied that there is an official view with regard to this sort of thing.
May I say to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) that as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) moved the Motion, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) seconded it, I assumed, in accordance with the ordinary procedure of the House, that the next speaker would come from the other side. The right hon. Gentleman rather suggested at one stage of his speech that I ought to have intervened before him.

Mr. Churchill: Mr. Churchill indicated dissent.

Mr. Ede: I am glad to note that is not his opinion, because the other day a somewhat similar episode occurred. I got up to ask the House to pass to the next business; I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman, and then he asked why I had not done it. I try to act in accordance with the best traditions of the House, and I would not like the House to think that I hesitated to come in this evening after two speeches had been delivered from this side of the House, because, whatever line a Member is going to take, we try, as a rule, to alternate speeches between one side and the other.
I am sure everyone of us enjoyed the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman. I know that the family tradition is not strong in arithmetic, and I am bound to say—[Interruption.] After all, the right hon. Gentleman has had his little jokes, and I am quite sure—I know him too well for that—that he does not resent something being said in reply. But the last Government formed by Mr. Gladstone was formed in 1892, which is not 16 years after 1885.

Mr. Churchill: How many years is it?

Mr. Ede: According to my calculations—and this is subject to being checked in the Treasury—it is seven, which was the exact length of time that Jacob laboured for each of two successive wives.

Mr. Churchill: I am sorry about putting on an extra 10 years, but it was to reinforce the assurance I was endeavouring to give to my hon. Friends.

Mr. Ede: Even now the right hon. Gentleman has not got his arithmetic right. It is only nine.

Mr. Osborne: Did not Jacob labour for 14 years?

Mr. Ede: I said that he laboured for seven years for each of two successive wives.
The right hon. Gentleman is, as he pointed out to us, in a peculiar personal position in this matter, inasmuch as he is a parishioner in the parish in which this matter has arisen, and I gather, though he did not say so, that the fact that the church is nearly empty is not a result of his own personal observation. It seemed to me that he gave an exposition of the position of the bishop and the priest, and, as I understand it, of the parishioner and the priest in the Church of England which I believe to be quite accurate, although I speak merely as a Nonconformist. There is only one thing—I rather imagine that a communication made about a priest to a bishop might possibly influence the priest's chance of preferment. I think it might do, because I understand that there are some livings which are in the gift of a bishop.
The issue that has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman was, first, as to the relationship of this Motion to the authority of the Chair, and that has just been taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim, North (Sir H. O'Neill), in the quite balanced speech he has delivered to us. There is an hon. Gentleman—I am not quite sure how one alludes to him because he is a gentleman who was elected at the last election for the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Healy), who has not yet taken his seat. Therefore, I do not think I am entitled to allude to him by name. He was also returned in 1924 and at that time he was an inhabitant of one of His Majesty's gaols in Northern Ireland. His

position was raised by an hon. Member whom a few of us now can recall, Mr. Pringle, who was a very great hand at raising the kind of difficulties that now seem to be the special prerogative of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman); and he was as much a thorn in the side of the Leader of the House as my hon. Friend.
Mr. Speaker Whitley was then in the Chair. I speak of him with the greatest respect for he was the first Speaker under whom I sat here and I think his conduct of the proceedings of the House is worthy of consideration in this matter. This subject was suddenly raised and Mar. Pringle was supported, in submitting the matter to the House, as a matter of Privilege by no less an authority than Sir John Simon, as he then was. Mr. Speaker, on 15th January, 1924, asked that he might be allowed to consider the matter for a day and said he would give his decision on the following day. Perhaps I had better read Mr. Speaker's Ruling on that occasion. It is quite short. It is:
MR. SPEAKER: With regard to the matter raised yesterday, I have considered with care all the points submitted to me by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), and the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), and by other Members.
The point which I have to decide is, fortunately, a much narrower one than might be thought from the submissions made. It is only this: Is there a prima facie case of Privilege instantly arising which calls for the setting aside of the business of the day that it may be dealt with immediately? On that point, my reply must be in the negative.
Then he went on:
It remains open to the hon. Member to table a Motion, and to bring it before the House at the proper time. Then it will be for the House to decide whether or not there is a case for a Committee.
That is the Ruling of a Speaker for whom I am quite sure, every one of us who sat under him had the utmost respect. He concluded his observations by saying:
In giving this decision, I base myself not only on my own decision given in November, 1922, but also on that of my predecessor (Mr. Speaker Lowther), given in a similar case on the 17th and 21st May, 1917. The reference is OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 93, cols. 1783, 1923 and 1963.
There can be no doubt that it has been the Ruling of successive Speakers that this way of dealing with the matter is one that is open to the House.

Mr. Pickthorn: It is a little difficult always to deal with these new pieces of learning—although I make no complaint of that—if one has not seen them before. If I heard the right hon. Gentleman aright, Mr. Speaker Whitley was careful to say that the only point that he was deciding was whether there was a question which must be dealt with on that day. That was quite different from the decision given by Mr. Speaker the other day. Also there was no doubt on that earlier occasion that there was a matter of Privilege of some sort. A Member of Parliament being imprisoned is a prima facie matter of Privilege.

Mr. Ede: Mr. Speaker ruled that a Member of Parliament being imprisoned was not a prima facie case. The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question about the actual Ruling. Mr. Speaker Whitley said that the point he had to decide was
a much narrower one, than might be thought from the submissions made. It is only this: Is there a prima facie case of Privilege instantly arising which calls for the setting aside of the business of the day that it may be dealt with immediately?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1924; Vol. 169, c. 126.]

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The matters are not comparable.

Mr. Ede: I had thought from what I said the other day that that is exactly the position which, in our view, has arisen here. It would have been open for any hon. Member in the three cases that we have recently had, not to go to Mr. Speaker at all, but to put on the Order Paper a Motion that such and such a matter shall be referred to the Committee of Privileges. But it is desirable—I do not think this will be challenged—that if a serious matter of Privilege is raised, it should be dealt with at the earliest possible moment. I am bound to say that in any of these three cases, if the hon. Members had felt sure that if they had put their Motions on the Order Paper they would have got time for the consideration of those Motions, I do not think it would have mattered very much whether they went to Mr. Speaker or not. The advantage of going to Mr. Speaker in that way is that if he will allow one to raise the matter, it can be brought before the House immediately, it has precedence over the Orders of the day and has to be taken at the end of Questions. That is the great advantage of securing from Mr.

Speaker a Ruling that there is a prima facie case.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not also a precedent—I do not say a universal precedent, but a good precedent—that on Mr. Speaker ruling that there is a prima facie case, the Leader of the House himself immediately moves that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges?

Mr. Ede: Curiously enough, that is a point that rather worried me. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, I am very much worried in my present position, and I thank him for the sympathy he has extended to me. I am told that the proper procedure is the one that has been followed—that the Member who makes the submission, if he is granted a prima facie case, then moves that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges. I took great trouble to ensure that in any action I took I should be following the accepted routine of the House. What has happened on each of the three occasions on which this matter has recently been before us, is that the hon. Member who submitted the case has moved that it be remitted to the Committee of Privileges.
There have been occasions when the House has decided forthwith that it would not refer it. There have been cases when there has been some short discussion. There may have been cases in the past when there has been a long discussion. At any rate, it is a debatable Motion and hon. Members will recollect that in the last Parliament, in the case to which I alluded the other day, when the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn) drew attention to something in the "Daily Worker," my right hon. Friend who was then Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House said, in effect, "I do not think there is much in this," and suggested that the matter should be turned down out of hand; but the House took a different view and referred the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
Let there be no doubt, then, of the position as Mr. Disraeli gave it in the statement which was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher)—a statement made on 4th March, 1875:
It is well, Mr. Speaker, that the House should remember that it is in the power of


the House to decide what is privileged, and although we do always listen with respect to any opinion which may be expressed from the Chair, still that is a function which this House never must give up."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1875; Vol. 222, c. 1192.]
That is why I am bound to say that I regret the action of the Leader of the Opposition in saying"we"—and by that I suppose he means the whole of his party—"shall certainly vote one way"; although I understand that he does not intend to put on the Whips. At any rate, his advice to his party, as a party, is to vote in a particular way.

Mr. Churchill: In support of the Chair.

Mr. Ede: That does not make it any less an expression of view from the leader of a party to his followers as to the way in which they should vote on this -question. Because I think this is a matter on which each Member of Parliament should vote in accordance with his own conscience, with no pressure at all from his party Leader or his party Whip, I personally regret the action which the right hon. Gentleman has taken. I have no doubt that he has done it in what he thinks is the best interest of the House.

Mr. Churchill: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to sit down without telling us how he himself is going to resolve this problem.

Mr. Ede: When one thinks of the length of time which the right hon. Gentleman took, it is quite unfair for him to suggest that I am going to evade anything. It is usual, I know, when any of my right hon. Friends is about to sit down, for half a dozen hon. Members to jump up and say, "Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down …"But I do not intend to evade anything.

Mr. Churchill: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was about to sit down.

Mr. Ede: I hope the House will agree with me when I say that this evening the matter was raised by two of my hon. Friends in speeches which were worthy of the occasion. Whether the House agrees with it or not, I think they put their point of view with moderation and with considerable power. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne started by emphasising that he was not raising the issue in a party spirit, and he de-

scribed the letter which was the original cause of this trouble as having been written in savagely ironical terms. Irony is of course, a very dangerous form of speech to employ. There was the classic case of Daniel Defoe who wrote, "The Shortest Way with the Dissenters" in such ironic terms that the High Church party thought it was worth adopting. When they found that they had been fooled they put him in the pillory, to the great delight of the citizens of London who rallied round the pillory to ensure that no indignities were inflicted on him—and that is, of course, the classic example of the use of this form of speech and literature in matters bordering on the theological and ecclesiastical.
I agree with what the right hon. Member for Antrim, North, said with regard to the next stage of the proceedings. I am bound to say this: that had I received such a letter and, being a member of the Church of England, had thought it my duty to approach one of the high authorities of the Church on the matter, I think I should first have written to the gentleman concerned to say what a shock this letter had caused me—and I accept the view of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. John Rodgers) that the receipt of this letter did shock his sense of the proprieties—and, before I sent it on, I should have asked whether he would have any objection to that course.
I do occasionally receive the kind of letter from constituents or from friends in which they hint they would like some approach to be made in some quarter. Sometimes I am not at all sure that an approach, if made, might not land them into some difficulties; and in those cases I invariably write back and say, "Do you know the risk you are running by asking me to submit this case to somebody who may, quite possibly, take some action that is inimical to you?" I think that that is quite a reasonable line to take, and had I received the vicar's letter, and, as a member of the Church of England, felt it was my duty to take some action with the bishop or any other high authority, I think I should have followed that line.
I am quite certain that if a member of my own denomination wrote to me, before I sent his letter on to the General Assembly, I should certainly ask him whether I had his permission to do so. That is a matter of personal conduct


on which hon. Members may very well take different views; but I was rather relieved to find that so great an authority on matters such as this as the right hon. Member for Antrim, North, took the same view of it as I did. He said that he regarded it as an error of judgment. I do not think I need add any more to that.
The right hon. Member for Antrim, North, said that he thought that Mr. Speaker should give reasons. My own view is that when an occupant of the chair or Mr. Speaker begins to give reasons for the Rulings that he gives, we are nearly at the end of orderly debate. I have had some experience of chairmanship. I was once asked, when I was in the chair at the county council, if I realised that I had ruled the Lord Lieutenant out of order. My answer was, "While I am in the chair I decide what are points of order, and my ruling applies to every member of the council, Lord Lieutenant or not."

Mr. Churchill: No doubt about that.

Mr. Ede: There was great doubt about it. I know I differ on that from very distinguished authority, but my own view is that in any case where Mr. Speaker's Ruling is to be challenged, it should not be by a series of arguments with a view to trying to get from Mr. Speaker the reasons for the Ruling which he has given, because once we degenerate into that I believe that our end as a debating Chamber has come.
I just want to say this. There is no doubt that the great growth of the electorate, and the much wider range of intimate concerns which the electorate find themselves compelled to ask Members of Parliament to deal with, have created a situation which really ought to be investigated. As I said earlier, we all get letters, some written by very illiterate people who are trying to do their utmost, and who are often under great physical and mental strain in putting their ideas on paper. In endeavouring to make a clean breast of affairs those people may very often disclose something which, if carried to certain quarters, might get them into serious trouble.
I think it would be a good thing if we could consider the modern relationship of a Member of Parliament with his constituents so that we could have some guidance on this matter, and I should

have thought myself that the Committee of Privileges was probably the best body to give such advice. I agree with a remark made by the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), that this is not truly a case of Privilege but a case of contempt, if there is any case at all; and that, after all, is also a matter that is dealt with by the Committee of Privileges.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me what advice I was going to tender and what I was going to do myself. The advice I tender to the House is this: that every Member should consider this case on its merits as it appeals to him, and then, irrespective of anything that may have been said by any authority, no matter how exalted, he should cast his vote in accordance with his own conscience. As for myself, after great consideration—and this is not to influence the vote of anyone—I intend to cast my vote for the Motion that my hon. Friend has placed on the Order Paper.

9.13 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I do not think that any hon. Member in any quarter of the House can have any complaint about the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman addressed himself to this subject or gave his advice. They will all agree, I think, with the advice, that this matter should be approached and considered as a matter of conscience, even though the result of applying the advice may be different from that which the right hon. Gentleman finds for himself. The only reason why I am troubling the House tonight is that I think that this question raises a most important problem from the point of view of the working of the House, the prestige of the House and the position of Members of Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman was quite correct—and no one will disagree with him—in saying that today the question of correspondence has become one which not only involves hard work but which raises constant and repeated difficulties. I am in the sort of intermediate grade of importance; I get, I think, 300 letters a week. Hon. Members know exactly what that means. Some get more and some get less. They know the great practical difficulty of dealing with them, because in many cases, as the right hon. Gentleman said, points are put forward which require the


greatest consideration in order to know what is the proper course to help the constituent.
Without exhaustively characterising the letters, I think there are three classes which everyone will agree are important. One is the correspondent who calls for administrative action which he wants the Member to secure; the second is the correspondent who has a deeply-rooted grievance; and the third is the correspondent who wants to impress the Member with his own view on a great public question as opposed to a private question. The last two classes, as I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree, vary from the tragic to the completely eccentric. That is the problem with which a Member of Parliament has to deal today; and what I am most anxious should go out from this debate is that hon. Members, irrespective of party, are not only conscious of that problem but are definitely doing their utmost to try to grapple with it every day and for long periods of every day.
Do not let us by this debate give the impression, which would be quite fallacious and untrue, that we in this House as a body view our correspondence from our constituents as anything but a heavy duty which we are proud to perform but at the same time have great difficulty in performing. Let them see that that is the way we approach it. If everyone agrees, as I think they will, with that approach, I want then to consider the position of the Member.
I do not think that anyone on mature consideration would disagree with what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said about the Privilege of Parliament. As the Leader of the House was inclined to indicate, contempt is only another facet of the same matter. Privilege is given for one purpose and one purpose only—that the Members of Parliament individually and collectively and Parliament as a whole shall be able to function freely, efficiently and properly. That is the sole purpose of Privilege.
The point that I want to make is that if Members of Parliament are to be able to deal freely and effectively with this great problem, they must have a wide field of discretion as to how they are to

deal with letters and correspondence. I put it to hon. Members that a wide field of discretion means that we must be free to take a course of which other people disapprove. That is the only meaning of discretion and therefore we must not let down our own standards. Each one of us can adopt his own standards and make them as high as he likes, but the only thing that can bring us within the reach of either Privilege or contempt is when someone has done something, not of which hon. Members disapprove as governing their own affairs, but something which is so bad—and this is the text—that it brings the whole body of the House into disrepute. If we are to adopt another approach, it means that every time our own view and our own standard is transgressed or differed from, then we are going to have a breach with someone who has taken a different view.
May I take an example from what happened recently. An hon. Member opposite—and I entirely agree with what he did—got one of those petitions which have been flying about, the British Peace Committee Declaration, and it was signed by a number of his constituents with a top signatory. The hon. Member wrote, I understand, contemporaneously to the top signatory and sent a copy to his local paper. The top signatory said he had seen the letter first in the local paper, and he complained because after it had appeared in the local paper, somebody quite unconnected with the hon. Member happened to break his window with a stone. What I am putting to the House is—and I am not mentioning this without having discussed it with the hon. Member in question—that the hon. Member not only wrote to a constituent but he gave publicity to what he wrote. There, I believe, he was quite right.
The hon. Member, in good faith and with complete honesty in facing a problem of what was the correct thing to do with the British Peace Committee's Declaration, felt that he had to declare his views on it and his opposition to it in the public Press as well as to one of the signatories. That is the sort of issue which is going to crop up and which we have to consider. That is why I am asking hon. Members to consider it from the point of view of the independence and freedom of action of the Member of Parliament.
I only want to say one word about the position of the Chair, and I hope it will not be considered controversial. Any Member of this House is entitled to put down a Motion, as has been done in this case, and take his chance to get time for it in the ordinary way, but the Chair has always to consider two points—whether it is in good time, and secondly, whether there is a prima facie case. An application to the Chair may be in good time, but may fail on the second ground that there is no prima facie case. That is a very convenient method—I have deliberately pitched my words low because I want to take hon. Members with me—of dealing with this problem.. I have tried to explain how it may arise from different points of view.
The convenient way is that the Chair should say: "I do not think it has the beginnings of a question of Privilege." When the Chair has said that—because that is what saying" There is no prima facie case"means—then that is the view of the Chair. We are a democratic assembly. By all means let us upset the view of the Chair. Fortunately, in our history, it is a remarkable thing how seldom that necessity has arisen in the last 150 years. It is a remarkable feature of our Parliamentary life. It is a very serious matter if, when the Chair says: "I cannot see the beginnings of a case but you have put me in this position; I have experience of innumerable cases brought to me, some serious, some frivolous and some betwixt and between; I have given my best attention but, in my view, there is no beginning of a case," we are to take the view that that should be a matter of disputation and even of a resolution. We might find it most inconvenient for our procedure. It would certainly mean a case of the utmost gravity before it could be done. I hope that the House will accept it from me that I am trying to approach this matter from the House of Commons angle, that is what I am interested in.
With regard to the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. John Rodgers), I simply want to say that I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the dangers of irony but I go a little further. I hope, as I value his opinion, that he will agree with me that there are certain things to which our people do not like to have irony, and

especially cheap irony, applied to. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) says that cheap irony is the other fellow's. I do not think it is. Irony becomes cheap if it is applied to matters which the great majority of our fellow citizens hold sacred and dear. If we apply irony to war memorials, the dead and that sort of thing, we get into the area of cheap irony.
Also, when we are dealing with the working of the Church, whether it is our own Church or anyone else's, when people are appointed to high and responsible positions, and anybody uses cheap and nasty language about them and suggests that they are subject to the pressure of politicians—in this case the vicar does not distinguish between the two Front Benches, but that does not matter—that is the sort of thing I mean. If I may put it colloquially to the House, it means that you have gone over the limit and have gone into the field of cheap irony. What I want hon. Members to consider is whether we cannot have a really honest reaction to that, especially the second thing, the reaction of feeling, "Well, I feel that has gone outside the usual sand which comes up to us from the arena and it is something about which I ought to get the advice of someone in that line."
My last point—I promised the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) that I would not take more than one moment of his time—is about Privilege generally. I believe it is a sign of a healthy House of Commons and of strength and power that it does not worry too much about its privileges, either individually or collectively. One of the best things Parliament ever did—again I think I take the right hon. Gentleman with me—was when, 250 years ago, both Houses agreed that they would not extend their privileges because they felt that they had got to the position where they had established their freedom and power by asserting the privileges that were necessary and they were not going further and making that power corrupt by asserting privileges which were too great. When a House of Commons or any Parliamentary assembly begins to get self-conscious about its powers and its privileges, I begin to wonder—I hope the House will not think I am breaking my own rule and becoming cynical—whether it has not begun to decline. That is one of the signs.
I would from that point or view, having tried to consider the problem fairly, ask hon. Gentlemen, wherever they sit, not to make this a matter of Privilege or to carry the Motion, but to place on record our views and our humble but sincere determination that the feeling of the House of Commons—it is far more than Privilege—which really makes things well, will not be lessened in our time.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: It is neither an easy nor a pleasant task to wind up the debate tonight. I should like to begin by making two observations. First, I am personally sorry that the case before us tonight should involve the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. John Rodgers). I had the pleasure and privilege of working with him in the same Ministry at the beginning of the war, and I believe that the first time that I met him was when we were comrades together in the Home Guard.
I have a high opinion of the hon. Gentleman's personality and ability and I am sorry that this case should involve him, but I want to assure the House that we who have put down the Motion are not in any way making imputations against his honour or integrity; we are only bringing into question his judgment; and we are asking the House to decide whether it would not be wise that an impartial body like the Committee of Privilege should look into the matter and consider whether it could lay down certain rules for the guidance of hon. Gentlemen who may be placed in a similar position.
The second observation I want to make is this. I believe that the House has tonight acquitted itself according to the best traditions of the House of Commons. In contrast with some recent debates, we have had a quiet, moderate and restrained discussion, but if there is one regret that I have left at the end of it it is that the Leader of the Opposition did not feel able to get up and say that he was prepared to give his supporters an entirely free vote on this issue.

Hon. Members: He did.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I meant to repeat what was said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, but I did not do so because I was anxious not to take any more of the hon. Member's time.

There is no question that there will be a free vote by hon. Members on this side of the House tonight. I intended to emphasise that. When I appealed to hon. Gentlemen to vote according to their consciences, I was appealing to the whole House, and I want to make that perfectly clear.

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Mr. Greenwood: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking for his party, nobody is happier than I am to accept his assurance, but I certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, to say," 'We' will vote. "At all events, I am happy to have the assurance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because I thought that the Leader of the Liberal Party laid down the principle for occasions of this kind when he said on Monday night that the House of Commons was greater than any party in it. This is essentially a House of Commons matter, and I am happy that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House are to have complete freedom of conscience on this occasion.
I had thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) had made it abundantly clear at the beginning of this debate that we were not in any way attacking the authority of the Chair in putting down this Motion. That is a view which has had the support of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and yet, in spite of my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend, speaker after speaker on the other side of the House has come back to the point that this is either an attack on the Chair, or that it is a very serious step to take, or that it is, in fact, interfering with a practice which is for the general convenience of the House. The only attack which has been made on the Chair in recent days has been that made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) on Thursday night. There is certainly no possibility of hon. or right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House making reflections on the impartiality of the Chair in exercising its functions.
Indeed, the Motion we have put down was interpreted by the noble Lord the Father of the House when he pointed out,


on 15th March, according to column 1790 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, that this Motion was not a Vote of Censure on Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House agreed on that occasion. We have based our attitude on the Ruling which is given in page 356 of the 14th Edition of Erskine May, describing Mr. Speaker's functions on occasions of this kind. It is quite clear, as hon. Members and my right hon. Friend have pointed out, that the only effect of Mr. Speaker's Ruling was to deny my hon. Friend's Motion priority on that occasion.

Earl Winterton: What I intended to say on that occasion—I do not think I made it clear—was that this Motion is not in the category of a Vote of Censure in the technical sense of the word, in which case, of course, by the custom of the House, immediate time would have had to be given for it. I made no comment, and as a Member of the Committee of Privileges I propose to make no comment as to whether this Motion implies a reflection upon Mr. Speaker, which is a different point.

Mr. Greenwood: I am happy to have the noble Lord's comment. His contribution the other day was not completely clear, but I will not press him further on that because of his quasi-judicial capacity.
Mr. Speaker having ruled that there was no prima facie breach of Privilege, we must remember that it was then open to the Leader of the House, in view of the feeling widely expressed among hon. Members, to say that although Mr. Speaker was not able to direct that the Motion should have priority, he was nevertheless prepared to make time available for a discussion of this matter because of the gravity of the issues which had been raised. I think that that was a perfectly proper course for the right hon. Gentleman to take. The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) has commented, throughout his speech, on the gravity of the issues which have been raised on this occasion. It is because we on this side of the House feel that the Rules are obscure on this point that it would be desirable to refer them to a Committee of senior Members of this House in order that we might have their guidance upon them.
My own feeling is, and I say this in fairness to the hon. Member for Seven-oaks that I should have thought it would have been vastly preferable for him that these allegations, which have been made by some hon. Members of the House, should be threshed out by a Committee representing all parties of the House, m order that any criticism of him might be completely wiped off the record, if no ground for criticism existed.
I was sorry that the Leader of the Opposition, who, I regret, is no longer in his place, should have made these allegations against the Vicar of Crockham Hill. I have a good deal of information about the Vicar of Crockham Hill with which I shall not weary the House. I would only say that the Vicar of Crockham Hill had a very distinguished record in the First World War and that when I asked one of my clergymen friends who knows him well what his view of the Vicar of Crockham Hill was, he described him as "one of the godliest men I have ever been privileged to know." Perhaps, as the Leader of the Opposition is not a member of the congregation which the Vicar of Crockham Hill gathers round him, he is not in a position to judge of the character of the vicar himself.
If I may come to the correspondence which is the subject of discussion, I think that every hon. Member will agree that the letter which the Vicar of Crockham Hill sent to the hon. Member for Seven-oaks was a hysterical letter. The tone of irony with which it was written was, I think, as reprehensible as the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby obviously thinks it to be. I personally deprecate both the tone and the content of the letter. The whole implication of the letter is an aspersion upon what the vicar believes to be the failure of the Church of England to apply Christian principles to present-day problems and the hon. Member for Sevenoaks told the House in his personal statement the other day that, and these are his words:
I felt that I should consult with someone in the Church before replying, since matters of Church doctrine seemed to be involved."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1951, Vol. 485, c. 1321.]
I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that matters of Church doctrine were not involved in the letter.

Mr. Fort: May I draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fourth paragraph of the vicar's letter, in column 1320 in which, writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. John Rodgers), he said:
Of course, a few paragraphs of that curious document, the Report of the Lambeth Conference …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 1320.]
I should certainly have thought that to any layman that was a reference obscure enough to require elucidation by someone experienced in ecclesiastical affairs.

Mr. Greenwood: I do not agree. They are not points of theological doctrine, but quite unjustified allegations against the behaviour of the Church of England in conditions as they are at the present time.
The point I want to emphasise is that even if there had been a question of theological doctrine involved, it is no part of the duty of a Member of Parliament to set himself up as a guardian of the Church's conscience in matters of this kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It would be a most curious situation if, when a citizen of this country became elected to Parliament, he automatically became the guardian of the Church's conscience and if hon. Members who were either Jewish, Nonconformist, or Roman Catholic had to satisfy themselves that all the clergy in their constituency were complying with every letter of the 39 Articles of the Church of England. That would be a heavy task to place on hon. Members of this House, heavier, indeed, than the task to which the Leader of the Opposition referred.
The next letter was to the Bishop of Rochester and it is interesting to note that it was said, in regard to that letter, that the hon. Member was influenced by the fact that he was writing to a Peer Spiritual, a member of another place. I do not know whether he was suggesting that the position would have been any different if he were writing to the Bishop of Croydon or one of the other bishops of the Church of England who is not a Member of the House of Lords. It is a pity we have not had an opportunity of elucidating that point. The significant passage of the letter to the bishop is that he said—and here his wording is more close to the facts of the situation than the interpretations which the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) placed on it—

that the vicar's letter attacked the Church and then he added:
Is there anything we can do about this,?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 1321.]
I will not touch upon the letter which the hon. Member for Sevenoaks wrote to the Vicar of Crockham Hill, except to say that although he had reported the vicar to the bishop, he did not see fit to inform the vicar of that fact.

Mr. Angus Maude: I think that in fairness the hon. Member should emphasise the fact that that letter was not written by my hon. Friend to his constituent until after the letter from the bishop was in his hands, to the knowledge of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Greenwood: On that, I would only comment how much better it would have been if the hon. Gentleman had informed the vicar before writing the letter to the bishop, because this raises a number of interesting considerations about the position of the clergy of the Church of England. When the hon. Member for Sevenoaks came to explain his conduct in the House on 13th March, he emphasised that the relationship between bishop and vicar was not one of employer and employee. In the case of vicars that is, generally speaking, true. There is no relationship of that kind, although, as the Leader of the House pointed out, a number of bishops have livings in their gift, and it is for them to decide whether or not they will appoint a clergyman to one of those livings. There are, of course, livings which are not endowed, and there it would be possible for a bishop to make it extremely difficult for funds to be made available to an errant vicar out of diocesan finances.
But the real point about the clergy is that all clergy of the Church of England are not beneficed clergy. There are a large number of clergy who are clergymen of the Church of England who have no livings upon which they depend. They are dependent for their livelihood upon employment by a vicar or upon the bishop of the diocese giving them a licence enabling them to carry on their holy calling in that diocese. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks weighed up this question very carefully and decided that as it was a vicar it did not matter, but if it had


been a curate it would have been possible for disciplinary action immediately to have been taken against the curate in question.
When the hon. Gentleman made his personal explanation in the House he said there was no possible question of victimisation in the case of clergymen.

Mr. Blackburn: On a point of order. Is it not somewhat improper, in view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman concerned has withdrawn from the House and cannot protect himself, for it to be suggested that he has made a personal explanation to excuse his own conduct, when he has not done that at all?

Mr. Greenwood: During the discussion tonight other hon. Members have repeated substantially the case which the hon. Member for Sevenoaks made about the impossibility of victimisation. It is possible for a clergyman of the Church of England to be victimised if he is not beneficed.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Not this one.

Mr. Greenwood: We are discussing the general desirability of hon. Members sending to bishops letters from clergymen in their constituencies, and it is upon the general issue that we want to have the guidance of the Committee of Privileges. Hon. Members may recall that about a year ago there was a debate in another place in which Lord Vansittart made an attack upon a clergyman of the Church of England, the Rev. Gilbert Cope.

Mr. Blackburn: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to refer to a debate which took place in another place in which Lord Vansittart took part, and to make adverse comments in relation to that debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it is in order, because I understand that the debate was not in this Session of Parliament.

Mr. Blackburn: The debate was in this Session of Parliament; I attended it personally.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If, in fact, it was in this Session of Parliament, then the hon. Member should not refer to it.

Mr. Greenwood: Perhaps I may put it in this way. Because of information conveyed to his bishop about the political views of the Rev. Gilbert Cope, the Bishop of Worcester revoked his licence to minister in the diocese of Worcester, but the House will be pleased to learn that the Bishop of Birmingham gave it back again. It does not follow that there will always be a liberal-minded bishop who is prepared to appoint clergy holding views different from his own.
I think that the Leader of the Opposition was right when he said that this is not only a question concerning the Church of England. If we are to make a precedent of this case, it will be open for Members of Parliament to report Nonconformist ministers to their Church officials and Catholic priests to their bishops, and it may well be that, in those circumstances, action may be possible against the clergymen in question.
The Leader of the Opposition was quite wrong in supposing that what we want to do is to extend the privilege of Parliament to correspondence between constituents and their Members. We do not want to do anything of the sort. Nor do we want, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby said, to extend the privileges of Parliament in any way. What we are saying is that, if constituents write to their Members of Parliament believing that their confidence will be respected, and a Member of Parliament sends on the letter to a third party, that is the kind of action which is calculated to bring Parliament into contempt, which would be a lamentable state of affairs.
If we are to turn down this Motion tonight, I believe that the rot will set in. Already, the "East Anglian Daily Times" of 19th March had this comment, referring to this question of correspondence between constituents and their Members of Parliament. The "East Anglian Daily Times," said this:
It is almost the duty of a Member to publish the letters of any critic on matters of policy, and his replies.
I think it will be a sorry day if the point of view of the "East Anglian Daily Times" should become the accepted view of the House, and when members of the public feel that no longer will they be privileged to write to their own Members


of Parliament, believing that their confidence would be respected.
In conclusion, may I say that we who support this Motion are the first to admit the regrettable nature of a case of this kind. Nevertheless, it does raise extremely important points, and we believe that it should go to the Committee of Privileges. I believe that, if it did, there would be no action taken against the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, but I believe that it would be regarded as the irresponsible act of, perhaps, an inexperienced Member. As a result of the deliberations of that Committee, hon. Members of this House in future would have the benefit of guidance

from the Committee of Privileges in their handling of constituency correspondence, and we should also have a ruling as to the extent to which Members of another place can interfere in the relationship between citizens and their Members of Parliament.

Question put,
That the matter of the complaint of the honourable Member for Nelson and Colne concerning the conduct of the honourable Member for Sevenoaks in handing over to the Bishop of Rochester a letter he had received from his constituent the Rev. O. Fielding Clarke, M.A., B.D., be remitted to the Committee of Privileges.

The House divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 284.

Division No. 64.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m


Acland, Sir Richard
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W Bromwich)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Adams, H. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Albu, A. H
Edelman, M.
Jay, D. P. T.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S W.)
Jenkins, R. H.


Awbery, S. S.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Ewart, R.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Baird, J.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Bartley, P.
Finch, H. J.
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)


Benn, Wedgwood
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Keenan, W.


Benson, G.
Foltick, M.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Beswick, F.
Foot, M. M.
Kinley, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon A (Ebbw Vale)
Forman, J. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Bing, G. H C
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Blenkinsop, A
Freeman, John (Watford)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Blyton, W. R.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N)


Boardman, H
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)


Booth, A.
Ganrley, Mrs. C S
Lindgren, G. S.


Bottomley, A. G
Gibson, C. W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Bowden H. W.
Gilzean, A.
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Glanville, James (Consett)
McAllister, G


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacColl, J. E.


Brockway, A. F
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
McGhee, H. G.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Grenfell, D R.
McInnes, J.


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Grey, C. F.
Mack, J. D.


Broughton, Dr. A D. D
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Brown, George (Belper)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon James (Llanelly)
McLeavy, F.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Burke, W. A.
Gunter, R. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Burton, Miss E.
Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Callaghan, L. J.
Hall, Rt Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Manuel, A. C.


Champion, A. J.
Hamilton, W W
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hannan, W.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.


Coldrick, W.
Hardman, D R
Mellish, R. J.


Collick, P.
Hardy, E. A
Messer, F.


Collindridge, F
Hargreaves, A
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Cook. T. F.
Harrison, J.
Mikardo, Ian


Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hastings, S.
Moeran, E. W


Cove, W. G.
Hayman, F. H.
Monslow, W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Henderson, Rt. Hon Arthur (Tipton)
Moody, A. S.


Crosland, C. A R
Herbtson, Miss M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B


Crossman, R. H. S
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Morley, R.


Cullen, Mrs. A
Hobson, C. R.
Mort, D. L.


Daines, P.
Holman, P.
Moyle, A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Mulley, F. W


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Houghton, D.
Mulvey, A.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hoy, J.
Murray, J. D.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hubbard, T.
Nally, W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


de Freitas, G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Deer, G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)
Oldfield, W. H.


Delargy, H. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oliver, G. H.


Dodds, N. N.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Orbach, M.


Donnelly, D.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Padley, W. E.




Paget, R. T.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Watkins, T. E.


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Simmons, C J
Webb, Rt. Hon. M (Bradtord. C.)


Paring, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Slater, J
Weitzman, D.


Pannell, T. C.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S)
Wells Percy (Faversham)


Pargiter, G. A.
Snow, J W
West, D. G.


Parker, J.
Sorensen, R. W
Wheatley Rt. Hon. J. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Paton, J.
Soskice, Rt Hon Sir Frank
White, Mrs. Eirene (E Flint)


Pearson, A,
Sparks, J. A
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N E,


Pearl, T. F.
Steele, T
Whiteley, Rt Hon W


Poole, C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wigg, G


Popplewell, E
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wilcock, Group Capt C A B


Porter, G.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wilkins, W. A


Proctor, W. T-
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)


Pryde, D J
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, David (Neath)


Rankin, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Rees, Mrs D
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Reeves, J
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, W T (Hammersmith, S.)


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Thomas, Iorworth (Rhondda, W)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Rhodes, H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thorneycroft. Harry (Clayton)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Robertson, J J (Berwick)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Wise, F. J.


Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras, N)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Wyatt, W. L


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L
Yates, V. F.


Royle, C.
Usborne, H.
Younger, Hon. K.


Shackleton, E A A
Vernon, W. F.



Shawcross, Rt Hon. Sir Hartley
Vianl, S P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wallace, H. W
Mr. Sydney Silverman and




Mr. Anthony Greenwood.




NOES


Aitken, W. T
Craddock, G. B. (Speltherne)
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.


Alport, C. J M
Cranborne, Viscount
Heald, Lionel -


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F. C.
Heath, Edward


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Arbuthnot, John
Crouch, R. F.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Crowder. Capt. John (Finchley)
Higgs, J. M. C.


Assheton, Rt. Hon R. (Blackburn, W.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythonshawe)


Astor, Hon. M. L
Cundiff, F. W.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Baker, P. A. D
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J M
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh. S.)
Hollis, M. C.


Baldwin, A. E
Davidson, Viscountess
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Banks, Col. C
Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Hope, Lord John


Baxter, A B
de Chair, Somerset
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A


Bell, R. M.
Deedes, W. F.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Digby, S. W.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Gosport)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Donner, P. W
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bevins, J. R (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N,.)


Birch, Nigel
Drayson, G. B.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)


Bishop, F. P.
Drewe, C.
Hudson, W. R. A (Hull, N.)


Black, C. W.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J


Blackburn, A. R.
Dunglass, Lord
Hurd, A. R.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D, C. (Wells)
Duthie, W. S.
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N)


Boothby, R.
Dye, S.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Bossom, A. C
Eccles, D. M.
Hutchison, Colonel James


Bower, Norman
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H M


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Hylton-Foster, H. B.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Erroll, F. J
Jeffreys, General Sir George


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Jennings, R


Braine, B. R.
Fisher, Nigel
Johnson, Major Howard (Kemptown)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. Gurney
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Fort, R
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Foster, [...]hn
Kaberry, D.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fraser, Hon Hugh (Stone)
Keeling, E. H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Kenyon, C.


Bullock, Capt M.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir David Maxwell
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Gage, C. H.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H


Burden, Squadron Leader F. A
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lambert, Hon. G


Butcher, H. W.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lancaster, Col. C. G


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Langford-Holt, J.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Carson, Hon. E.
Granville, Edgar (Eye)
Leather, E. H. C.


Channon, H.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Grimond, J
Lennox-Boyd. A T.


Clarke Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lindsay, Martin


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Grimston, Robert (Westbury)
Linstead, H. N.


Colegate, A.
Harden, J. R. E.
Llewellyn, D.


Conant, Mai. R. J. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Cooper, John (Deptford)
Harris, Reader (Heslon)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harvey, Air-Codre. A. V (Macclesfield)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)


Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)
Hay, John
Low, A. R. W.







Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pickthorn, K.
Studholme, H. G.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Pitman, I. J.
Summers, G. S.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Powell, J. Enoch
Sutcliffe, H.


McAdden, S J.
Prescott, S.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


McCallum, Major D.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, [...])


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Teeling, W.


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Teevan, T. L.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Profumo, J. D.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


McKibbin, A.
Raikes, H. V.
Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rayner, Brig. R
Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Maclay, Hon. John
Redmayne, M.
Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Renton, D. L. M
Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.


Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Tilney, John


Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.
Roberts, Major Peter (Heeley)
Touche, G. C.


Manningham-Bu[...]ler, R. E.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Robson-Brown, W.
Turton, R. H.


Marples, A. E.
Roper, Sir Harold
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Ropner, Col. L.
Vane, W. M. F.


Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Ross, Sir Ronald (Londonderry)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Maude, John (Exeter)
Russell, R. S.
Vosper, D. F.


Maudling R.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Mellor, Sir John
Scott, Donald
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Molson, A. H. E.
Shepherd, William
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Moore, Lt.-Col., Sir Thomas
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. [...]


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Watkinson, H.


Mott-Radctyffe, C. E
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Webbe, Sir Harold


Nabarro, G.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Nicholson, G.
Snadden, W. McN.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Soames, Capt. C
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Spearman, A. C M
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Nutting, Anthony
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Wills, G.


Oakshott, H. D.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Odey, G. W.
Stevens, G. P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
York, C.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.



Osborne, C.
Storey, S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Perkins, W. R. D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Mr. Iain MacLeod and


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Mr. Angus Maude.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Popplewell.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Question is "That this House do now adjourn." Brigadier Clarke.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Nally: On a point of order. We have just had a Division of some importance, not in party terms but in the history of the House, and there is a point on which I should like to ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The point of order is this. We were informed authoritatively by one who was taking the view that the Motion ought not to be carried and one speaking with some authority, that there was not, in fact, issued directly or indirectly any party Whip in connection with——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The question of party Whips cannot affect the Chair in any way.

Mr. Nally: My point of order is this. Where there is a matter affecting the

general privileges of the House, is it in order for the House and the country to be misled about the fact that a three-line Whip was issued to Members opposite?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think the Chair can have any cognisance of that matter. Brigadier Clarke.

Mr. David Renton: On a point of order. May I invite your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the Order Paper for today? May I point out that there is in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends a Prayer:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty"——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but I cannot listen to the hon. Gentleman. The position is that the Adjournment has been moved. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I have called upon the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke)——

Mr. Churchill: On a point of order. When was the Adjournment moved? What happened was that a question of order was raised by an hon.


Member opposite. But when was the Adjournment moved?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Prior to the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) raising the point of order, the Adjournment of the House had been moved, and I had called upon the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Furthermore, the Motion is not debatable.

Mr. Churchill: I am sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you would not wish the House to be misled as to what had actually taken place? Who moved the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Can the Chair be questioned?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: All I can say is that the Adjournment of the House was moved from the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Churchill: Surely the proceedings of the House ought to be conducted in audible tones so that hon. Members may be aware of what is going on. Matters of considerable consequence from the procedural point of view ought not to be hurried and nipped through in a sneaking and unfair manner without the House being aware of what has taken place. Further to the point of order, may I appeal to the Leader of the House not to take part in a fraud upon the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I would say that the Motion was moved in the normal way and that I have endeavoured to make a point, notwithstanding the noise on both sides of the House, of giving time throughout the debate and since for all hon. Members to hear what was going on. I rose and quite clearly called out, "The Question is that this House do now Adjourn"; and I called out the name of the hon. and gallant Member concerned, who rose in his place. That being the case, I am acting in strict accordance with the Standing Orders and I have no alternative but to call on the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has the Adjournment tonight to speak.

Mr. Renton: Mr. Renton rose——

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Mr. C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne) rose——

Mr. Bing: On a point of order——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Bing.

Mr. Bing: May I submit to you, Sir, on behalf of one-half of the signatories to the Prayer about which there seems to be such a dispute, whether it would be possible for you to appeal to the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) to allow the hon. and gallant Member who has the Adjournment to make his most valuable speech, which we shall all appreciate when it is made?

Mr. Renton: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? This is the third occasion upon which my Prayer has been down on the Order Paper and the third occasion upon which I have tried to move it. On the first occasion I withdrew my Prayer because the hour was late. and because, through inadvertence, I failed to notify the Minister responsible I was accused of gross discourtesy. I apologised at the time. This evening I was given no notice whatever that the Adjournment was to be moved against me. Moreover, I think I should remind you of the fact—because you yourself were in the Chair on the second occasion—that this is not the first time that this has happened, but is the second time. If I may presume to conclude my remarks, may I ask your guidance as to what a back-bench Member is to do when he wishes to exercise his humble duties?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am unable to offer guidance to the hon. Gentleman, except to say that perhaps the circumstances at the present moment seem to be rather exceptional.

Mr. Churchill: May I, on a point of order, ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you do not consider that the House as a whole—the majority of hon. Members—have a right to hear and be conscious of the putting of a Motion for the Adjournment? May I ask, with great respect, are not you, Sir, in the Chair personally responsible for making sure that hon. Members are properly able to take part consciously in the decisions of the House? Is it not likely to be very detrimental in the future if steps like this are taken unfairly, as everyone can now perceive, for a kind of party dodge? Is it not likely to be highly detrimental to the whole character and conduct of the House at the present time? May I not appeal to you to let us have the Motion which was put before the House put in-


the prescribed form and in a form which is audible to the House as a whole?

Sir Ian Fraser: Is it not the custom of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for you to call an hon. Member before he can rise in his place? How, then, could the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) have indicated his desire to move his Prayer unless you offered him the opportunity by calling him? In those circumstances, may I ask you whether possibly quite inadvertently, you were not in error in not giving the hon. Member the opportunity of indicating whether he wished to move his Prayer?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Gentleman I say that I have acted in strict accordance with Standing Orders. In my experience, having had the honour of occupying a Chair for some seven years, the Adjournment has been moved in precisely the same fashion throughout the whole of that period. It was sufficiently audible for the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has the Adjournment to rise in his place, and the matter is, in my view, perfectly in order. I would further say that the time that we take up on these points of order must, in accordance with Standing Orders, come out of the half-hour allowed for the Adjournment debate.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition,- in raising a point with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on the first occasion described what the Chair had done as "a fraud upon the House," and on the second occasion as being "unfair." May I ask you whether it is in order to describe a Ruling from the Chair as a fraud upon the House?

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman ingeniously and deliberately misquotes me. I did not say that what you had done was a fraud. What I said was that what had taken place amounted, in fact, to a fraud, and I say so still.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not regard what the right hon. Gentleman said as having any reference to any action I have taken.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: As I was to be the seconder of the Motion in the name of

the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), I have consulted all my hon. Friends beside me and none on this bench heard the Adjournment being moved, nor did any of us see the hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench moving it. On past occasions, when these Prayers have been moved it has been the practice of Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy-Speaker to call the name of the hon. Member who was to move the Prayer. The issue tonight was confused by the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally), and my hon. Friend had no opportunity whatsoever of getting up and moving the Prayer.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) must permit me to say that he is quite in error. There are no fewer than four Motions on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State.for Scotland and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton). Had the Adjournment not been moved, it would have been my duty to call on the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland and not the hon. Member for Huntingdon. I would respectfully suggest that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) should now be permitted to proceed with his Adjournment motion.

Mr. James Stuart: In view of the fact that these Prayers are on the Order Paper, and that it was perfectly well known to the whole House that it was the intention to discuss them if the Government had not persisted in this method of moving the Adjournment of the House before the Secretary of State for Scotland or anybody else had been called, I should like to ask what redress hon. Members have got? [HON. MEMBERS: "None."]. Hon. Members must understand there is a limited period in which these Prayers can be moved, and what I wish to ask is what redress has this House got in this matter? [HON. MEMBERS: "None."] They must have, and they are denied the right to discuss these matters.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I thank the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) for raising this issue. Late on


Monday night I took a certain course with regard to the Prayers that were then down. I intimated at that time that I would see what opportunity should be afforded for Prayers which might run out if no opportunity were give for calling them. I offered at that time to enter into negotiation with regard to the subject of prayers, particularly late at night. I was questioned yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to it and we had some exchanges, which in the earlier part were not unfriendly, and I am still anxious to enter into negotiation.
I stand by the pledge I gave, that all Prayers that would become, as I described it, time-expired if we moved the Adjournment before they were moved, should have an opportunity of being discussed. Of the two Prayers for tonight, the first does not become time-expired until 15th April and the second does not become time-expired until 21st April.
No matter what might occur with regard to the general discussions, I will undertake that an opportunity shall be afforded to the hon. Members whose names are attached to these Prayers— [HON. MEMBERS: "Not good enough."]—I will undertake with regard to the Private Members who have put down Prayers that I will try to come to an arrangement with them whereby, assuming nothing comes of the other matter, we shall be able to discuss these Prayers in reasonable comfort and afford hon. Members an opportunity of dealing with the matter. I may say, in addition, that I think we should be helped in dealing with these and other matters if the present clogging, as it appears to me— [Interruption.]—do give me a chance to finish—if the present clogging of the usual channels could be removed.

Mr. Churchill: I very much welcome the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House and the tone which he introduces, but the great matter which lies before us is this, that a large portion of the House has been completely misled about the business that was transacted. In the hubbub that followed immediately after an exceptional division, something was put through very quickly, in that corner of the House, and then we are deprived of our rights and our Parliamentary procedure is altered and subverted by that. I must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider care-

fully the grave danger into which this practice leads us and which undoubtedly will cause further consideration to be given to these matters in the future. I say that the great majority of hon. Members in the House, on this side at any rate, had no knowledge of the business that had been transacted in undertones by the Government Whips.

Mr. Ede: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the first part—if hon. Members would not converse amongst themselves, I think my voice is sufficiently strong generally to be heard in the House—I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the earlier part of his remarks. As I understand it, after ten o'clock, if the Motion for the Adjournment is moved by a Member of the Government, the Chair has to accept it. It is not debatable in the ordinary sense, but half an hour is allowed for discussion on the Motion. I am exceedingly anxious to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement on this difficult matter of Prayers, which has both a short-term and a long-term aspect. The short-term is to deal with the present inconvenience that a number of Prayers are taken after ten o'clock, sometimes starting after midnight. The other night they started at 2 a.m. We have first to find some way of dealing with that.
Secondly, I agree with what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Norwich, South (Mr. H. Strauss) and the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) on Monday evening, that the procedure with regard to Prayers and the difficulties presented in the way of dealing intelligently with them, so that the House can have some control over delegated legislation, is also a long-term matter which we should be well advised, in the interests of the House as a whole, to consider. I am exceedingly anxious to do all I can to facilitate reasonable discussion and the solution of these two problems.

Brigadier Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I want to point out that it was said that I rose in my place. I did not rise at all. I was facing the other way when I was called and my hon. Friend told me that my name had been called. I merely turned round. I never got off my seat.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is, therefore, perfectly clear that it was the hon. Gentleman sitting next to him. I thought it


was the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman sitting next to him heard me call upon the hon. and gallant Member to speak. That is sufficient for my purpose.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: May I put this point to the Leader of the House? It is a point of order. May I put it through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? The Leader of the House said that this particular Order runs out on 15th April and that we have plenty of time in which to pray against it. But may I, through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, put to the Leader of the House that these Orders which are produced by the Government and by Government Departments take effect from the date when they are signed in Council, and that between the time of the signature and the time when they may be annulled, the Orders take effect. So it is fair to say that we should pray against them if we think them objectionable or obnoxious as soon as possible.

Mr. Ede: I do not think that I need add anything to what I have just said. I know that at present there is very considerable inconvenience. I am anxious to end it as soon as possible, and I can assure the House that I am also anxious to get in touch with the hon. Members concerned to ensure for them that they shall get their Motions on to the Order Paper in reasonable circumstances as soon as possible.

Sir John Mellor: On a point of order. Has it not been the custom from time immemorial in this

House that the mover of a Prayer should have the right to select his day? In these circumstances, is it not a gross breach of the procedure of the House that the Adjournment Motion should be moved when there are Prayers on the Order Paper?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As the hon. Baronet will appreciate, the Chair cannot help that. The Chair is not the operating factor. If, in accordance with Standing Orders, the Adjournment is moved, the Chair has no alternative under Standing Orders but to accept it. Hence the difficulty in which Mr. Speaker and the present occupant of the Chair are placed.

Sir J. Mellor: May I, then, put the question to the Leader of the House? Is it not a gross breach of the traditions of the House to move the Adjournment?

Mr. Ede: No. Sir. It is not.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Richard Adams: May I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Adjournment of the House has been moved and that, as all these points of order affect legislation, they are quite out of order.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nineteen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.